Sitting of 23 March 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (By ORDER)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 30 March.

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 30 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Jobseekers (Internet)
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the Government's proposal to assist jobseekers through the internet. [114596]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): As part of a major modernisation programme of the Employment Service, a national job bank will be available on the internet from autumn 2000. It will have more than 300,000 Employment Service vacancies and jobs from the private sector and other European countries. Jobseekers will be able to search for jobs on the internet at home or elsewhere, and, through a new learning and work bank internet portal, obtain information on learning, training, jobs and careers.
    Dr. Cable: I welcome what, at first sight, seems to be a useful initiative. For clarification, may I ask, first, who will pay the internet access charges—will it be free to jobseekers? Secondly, what relation does the proposal have to earlier initiatives to equip all jobseekers with pagers and with special advisers? Does it supplant those services, or is it wholly additional to them?
    Ms Jowell: The intention is to have 10,000 kiosks by which the learning and jobs bank can be accessed in every jobcentre across the country. We are having discussions
    1094
    on locating kiosks—and, therefore, access to the internet job site—in pubs, cafes, restaurants and other places where access to them will be maximised. When people use the internet site in jobcentres, the service will be available free of charge. When the service is used in the privacy of their homes, they will be liable for charges.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second question about pagers and mobile telephones, it is important to understand that the jobs bank, pagers and mobile telephones are all part of a range of services being put in place to ensure that we speed the pace of communication on vacancies, and speed the process by which unemployed people get into jobs. Many of those initiatives will be delivered in the 50 new employment zones unveiled two weeks ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: As my right hon. Friend said, it is extremely important that access to the internet should be made as easy as possible. I hope that she will agree that that applies particularly to areas where there have long been high rates of unemployment. She mentioned various outlets where internet access could be found, but is there not also a role for schools—particularly schools that are applying for specialist technology status—in providing such access? Often, those schools are based in the community, thus allowing good access. What help and advice can she give on the role that schools can play in providing such access?
    Ms Jowell: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have a major programme of investment in information technology in schools to ensure that children, from the earliest years of their education, are able to learn and use the opportunities afforded by the internet. She also makes an important point about the need to ensure that we do not create a new faultline in our society, between the information haves and the information have-nots. That is why, later this year, we shall be launching a programme of 700 IT learning centres in some of the most deprived parts of the country, to ensure that those who are at risk of being excluded from the IT revolution have the opportunity to seize its benefits for themselves.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: May I seek some assurances from the Minister that the 10,000 booths will be spread across the country, so that rural areas also will receive their fair share of them? Will the booths have access only to the Employment Service's internet site, or will people be able to access all the private jobcentre sites that are now available?
    Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course we intend to ensure that this innovation provides additional information and help to people living in rural communities. I can confirm that the facility that I have described will be available in jobcentres serving rural communities. New technology will also offer further benefits to people living in scattered communities. We are in discussion about ensuring that those who have access to the learning and work bank have access also to the increasing number of high-quality employment sites that have been provided by private sector providers on the internet.

    Further Education Funding
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on the funding of further education. [114597]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Further education is central to the Government's economic strategy given the importance of skills, and is central to our social purpose in terms of fairness. Only last November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an increase of £365 million for further education in 2001–02—the biggest ever investment in further education.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that young people from poor homes need extra money in order to stay at college? Will he tell the House how much money will be spent this year to expand the education maintenance allowance to support the campaign to encourage young people to stay in education?
    Mr. Wicks: I am pleased to confirm that £53 million will be spent this year to expand education maintenance allowances because of our determination to ensure that young people stay in education. That, together with our other policies such as the connection strategy to bring about a youth support service, the new deal and modern apprenticeships, show our determination to ensure that young people across the country are encouraged to be well motivated, well educated and well trained.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: The Minister said that the Government's policy on the funding of further education is "central to our social purpose in terms of fairness." How can it possibly be fair for English students not to receive free tuition whereas their Scottish and European Union counterparts in Scottish universities will do so? Is not the Government's policy central to their purpose of keeping together their creaking coalition in Scotland, and nothing to do with fairness or academic good sense, since people will go to the university with cheap student fees rather than one which best suits their specialism?
    Mr. Wicks: The original question was about further education, which is sometimes confused with higher education. The number of young people going to university is increasing year by year and we have a fair funding system, which means that quality and quantity march together. Under the previous Conservative Government, quality suffered in universities and funding per student declined. We are maintaining standards—indeed, we are pushing up standards—while enabling more of our young people to go to university. That has to be the right approach.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on the subject of further education, to which the question relates, many people believe that resources for special needs students for subjects such as horticulture, hairdressing and personal hygiene are important, but so is access to core subjects such as computer literacy? Will my hon. Friend encourage all
    1096
    those concerned to make access available to those courses, and that includes physical access to the buildings involved.
    Mr. Wicks: The new legislation is clear about our determination to enable those with special needs and physical difficulties to have full access to our education sector, and that is absolutely right. Our further education colleges do a splendid job in enabling a number of young people and older people with difficulties to gain access to first-class education. I should like to take this opportunity to applaud the work in our college system to enable that fairness agenda to be developed.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: The Minister's written answers are sometimes, perhaps unintentionally, revealing. In the light of that, will he explain two things? First, during the last three years of the Conservative Government, as his written answers reveal, enrolments in further education rose from 3 million to over 4 million, but in the first three years of a Labour Government they have stagnated at best, and, in fact, slightly declined. Given that, how on earth will he fulfil his stated target of enrolling an extra 700,000 students in further education within the next two years?
    Secondly, will he explain how that process is to be helped by the blatantly missed targets on individual learning accounts? Those were due to appear nationally in April this year, but the Government have so far failed even to establish the public-private partnership to service and administer them?
    Mr. Wicks: As with higher education, we are concerned not just to increase the numbers entering further education colleges, but to improve standards and quality. Under the Conservative Government, there was a scandal around franchising involving many colleges. In one case, to boost numbers, a college claimed to be educating students who were, in fact, being educated in Scotland. The Conservatives should hang their heads in shame about the franchising scandal. They created the mess and we have cleared it up. We are determined to boost student numbers in further education while maintaining and improving standards. That is our agenda and we are sticking to it.

    New Deal (Sanctions Regime)
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What steps he has taken to tighten the sanctions regime for violation of new deal option obligations. [114599]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): With the exception of those who fall into the vulnerable groups, we have, from 6 March, introduced a new 26-week sanction for the small minority of young people who repeatedly refuse to take up or comply with the options available to them. That is fair to the hundreds of thousands of young people who have taken up the option and to taxpayers. That will be complemented by further moves, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in the light of Lord Grabiner's report.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that a trickle of people are starting to

    1097
    come to Members' surgeries, some of them with fluctuating medical conditions, who feel that the mechanisms by which they can make their case are less than adequate? Will he ensure that those dealing with these matters are sensitive to such cases?
    Mr. Blunkett: It is worth reinforcing the point that those who are subject to the new deal have been on jobseeker's allowance and have been available and declared themselves ready for work. Special advisers treat them with great care in ascertaining their medical condition to ensure that those in vulnerable groups are not included in the further sanctions that I have mentioned. Behaviour such as unjustified absence, refusal to attend a new deal option, leaving the option without agreement or serious misconduct is subject to the sanctions. Being ill, spasmodically or otherwise, is not.
    Mr. Richard Allan: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that the objective should, whenever possible, be to stop options breaking down so that sanctions do not have to be applied. Is he aware of feedback from some of the option providers who feel that people are sometimes placed inappropriately because of the pressure on the Employment Service to get the numbers through? Will he assure the House that as we bring the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service together and spread the new deal across the full age range, he will not set the targets in such a way that they take precedence over finding the right option for each individual going through the gateway?
    Mr. Blunkett: First, there is no evidence that that is happening. Secondly, the special adviser service is designed to tailor the option that young people or those over 25 take to meet their particular needs. If the hon. Gentleman can produce evidence to the contrary, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and I will be happy to take it up. We are taking further steps with employers, including announcements to be made shortly on the intensification of the gateway period and the necessary support that will be available to ensure that people are placed in the right option at the right time to meet their particular needs.
    Mrs. Theresa May: On 12 January, the Prime Minister boasted in the House that 170,000 young people had found work as a result of the new deal. In a press release last month on the latest figures, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities claimed that 185,000 had found work through the new deal. According to the Government's Red Book, only half those jobs can be claimed as a direct result of the new deal. Are not the Government's continuing extravagant claims for the success of the new deal just another example of their fiddling the figures? When will the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends stop spinning, start telling us the reality of the new deal and accept the verdict of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that it is not delivering?
    Mr. Blunkett: Even on the hon. Lady's definition, the new deal is obviously delivering. It is delivering to those who have been unemployed for more than six months and
    1098
    are under 25. It will deliver and has been delivering to those who have been unemployed for 18 months or more and are over 25, who have suffered long-term unemployment and would have continued to do so under the previous Government. Without the new deal, without training programmes and without the intensive work that is undertaken in advising those young people, there is no evidence that they would have moved quickly into work. We know that there has been a 70 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment. We know also that 800,000 more men and women have a job now than when we came into office in May 1997. Further, we know that Conservative Members would do nothing for those who faced long-term unemployment until we were elected.

    Classroom Skills
    Valerie Davey: What further encouragement by way of pay awards and training the Government will offer to develop further teachers' classroom skills in addition to the pay threshold. [114600]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Regular performance reviews will inform professional development. Outstanding teachers will be able to gain two points a year on the main pay spine. Teachers above the threshold will be eligible for further performance points, at the discretion of the governing body, for sustained and substantial improvement. We are also developing an awards scheme for excellent and improving schools and a new national strategy for continuous professional development.
    Valerie Davey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that positive response. Will she tell the House approximately how many experienced teachers are able to apply to go through the threshold and would potentially benefit from the awards that she has outlined?
    Ms Morris: Slightly fewer than 240,000 teachers are stuck at point 9 on the salary scale. All those teachers would be eligible for threshold assessment this summer. If they pass—we have always said that over time we expect the majority of eligible teachers to pass—they will receive an immediate salary increase of £2,000 and access to a further pay spine, where performance points will be available to them for good classroom teaching, rather than taking on management responsibilities. For the first time in the pay structure for teachers, good classroom teaching itself will be recognised and rewarded. Our best teachers will no longer have to leave the classroom to take on administrative responsibilities to receive an increase in their salary.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Is the Minister aware that schools in Trafford will not be able to afford to give additional encouragement to teachers, which they may want to do, because the Labour council has refused to give any funding to the schools to implement the Government's post-16 curriculum changes? Given that the Government said that the scheme would cost £35 million a year nationally, and that Trafford schools say that the cost will be £400,000 a year for them, how can they be expected to implement the changes without the funding being passed on to them?
    Ms Morris: I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. The hon. Gentleman is a regular attender of

    1099
    education debates and he knows that the money will come directly from Government after the assessment of teachers has been made. It is important that we give a clear message to teachers that if they apply for the threshold and are successful, they will receive the £2,000 increase. It is nothing to do with the money that is now in the school budget. It is extra money—an extra £2,000 per teacher—that will come from the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity to recognise that the schools in his constituency will receive their fair share of the money announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday. That, as well as the £2,000 that will be paid out to successful teachers, means that schools throughout Trafford will have more money next year than they ever had under the Conservative Government.

    School Sport
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What further plans he has to encourage sport in schools. [114601]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The Government are committed to extending the range and quality of sport available to all pupils, and believe that two hours of physical activity a week should be an aspiration for all schools. Our specialist sports colleges and the first school sports co-ordinators, who will be in post from September, will encourage that development. The Government's sports strategy, which will be published shortly by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will detail our plans for sport in schools and how they will link to the wider community and local sports clubs.
    Mr. Coaker: That reply shows that we are clearing up yet another mess that we were left.
    There is an awful lot of work to do in rejuvenating sport in our schools. Will my hon. Friend consider whether, in the partnership that she described, we can extend the range of support from professional football clubs and other sports and youth clubs? Will she ensure that, from the funding going into schools, we get capital works to improve sports facilities as well as to improve teaching?
    Jacqui Smith: During our teaching careers, both my hon. Friend and I had the pleasure of standing on windy sportsfields and encouraging young people. I strongly agree that we need to develop partnerships to get the most out of school sports. That is why we especially welcome the opportunities offered by out-of-school-hours clubs. The £160 million made available by the new opportunities fund and the £80 million from our standards fund are being targeted on communities with the greatest need and on building partnerships to provide more opportunities for young people both in and outside the curriculum.
    I also agree that we must ensure that our schools have the sports facilities that they need. That is why Sport England is being encouraged to ensure that its lottery funding gets into schools and why we will work with our DCMS colleagues to find new ways of improving facilities for schools.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We are all grateful for that helpful reply. I fully endorse the view
    1100
    that the Minister expressed about the importance of partnership, especially between football clubs such as Macclesfield Town and the community that I serve. Does she agree that physical team sports are important and that they require grass pitches? Unfortunately, despite the efforts of successive Governments, schools are still selling off playing fields. Will the hon. Lady give additional emphasis to the need for schools to retain their grass playing fields for physical team sports, which I personally believe—I think my view is shared—are important to young people?
    Jacqui Smith: I entirely agree. I wish that the previous Government had put the effort into that that we have. In our first major education legislation, we introduced the strictest criteria for local authorities to limit the sale of school playing fields. We have reduced the applications for sale from 40 a month to three a month. We are safeguarding those provisions for young people as well as providing, through the new opportunities fund, the chance to develop new facilities, sportsfields and grass areas for the use of all communities and schools. We expect the first of those grants to be made available this summer. We are not only defending sportsfields for our young people in a way that the previous Government never did but looking to develop those opportunities in our communities.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend believe that it is important to enable the education system to give all our young people the opportunity to be taught to swim?
    Jacqui Smith: Yes. That has remained an important part of the national curriculum and we think that all primary school children should have that opportunity. We have worked with swimming organisations to develop that further.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on secondary school class sizes since May 1997. [114602]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The most recent figures show that in January 1999 the average secondary class had 21.9 pupils. The corresponding figure for January 1998 was 21.7. January saw the first fall in overall average class size for 10 years, from 24.9 to 24.8. We are also well on course to deliver our pledge to limit infant classes to 30 by September 2001 at the latest.
    Mr. Leigh: Have the Government yet delivered their election manifesto promises on this matter?
    Ms Morris: Absolutely. We pledged that by 2002 there would be no child of five, six or seven in a class of over 30. We are on schedule to deliver that in advance of the target date. We have already cut the figure from more than 450,000 to 100,000, and in most local authorities it will be reduced further by September. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that in his constituency six schools have received more than £110,000 revenue to

    1101
    reduce class sizes and three schools have received between them almost £250,000 to build classrooms and other facilities.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue to build policies based on good research and experience in other areas? While I congratulate her on the fact that we are reducing class sizes where it matters—in the early years up to seven where all the research says it is crucial—I ask her to be guided also by the research that suggests that other techniques after seven are probably a better use of resources.
    Ms Morris: I take my hon. Friend's point, and the evidence clearly shows that it is in those early years that small class sizes are most important. He will know that for key stages 2, 3, and 4 we are adopting several strategies, including 20,000 more classroom assistants in the next few years, an advance in information and communications technology and, of course, the welcome extra money that will go directly into school budgets that was announced on Tuesday. That extra money will give teachers the flexibility to decide how to spend it to raise standards for children.
    Mr. James Clappison: Are not parents of secondary school children likely to be more than a little sceptical at the Minister's claim that the Government have fulfilled their pledge when the number of children in classes of more than 30 in secondary schools has risen by 25 per cent. since they came to office? Is not class size also important in secondary schools, as the Secondary Heads Association has pointed out? Larger classes in secondary schools make teaching even more stressful in schools in which it is already difficult to teach. Is not the situation especially bad in the former grant-maintained schools, which have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds in some cases through starvation of funding since this Government came to office? Given that the parents of children in secondary schools may well be waking up to the fact that they face large extra taxation as the result of the loss of the married couples allowance, are they not fully justified in concluding that in that area, as in so many others, the Government are taxing more and delivering less?
    Ms Morris: I have always thought it sad—although perhaps only to be expected—that every single question on class size from the Opposition has concentrated solely on secondary schools, because our record in key stages 1 and 2 is good and shows that we are delivering the goods. It is amazing that Opposition Front Benchers have not yet woken up to the announcement that was made on Tuesday. The Chancellor put more money directly into secondary school budgets. The amount of money that will go into those budgets on 1 April is enough to pay for an extra 3,500 teachers, which is three times as many teachers as would be needed to reverse the recent trend in secondary class sizes. Indeed, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), primary schools will receive £210,000 and secondary schools will receive £280,000.
    The Government have already delivered class size success at key stages 1 and 2. We made the pledge and we have delivered, and the money is now in the hands of head teachers, so that if they decide to do so they can pay
    1102
    for teachers to reduce class sizes in the next financial year. That is good news for teachers, good news for schools and good news for pupils—but poor news for the Opposition.

    Literacy
    Ms Joan Ryan: What plans he has to tackle literacy problems among secondary school pupils. [114603]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): The national literacy strategy has already had a significant impact on standards of literacy in primary schools and we are now determined to build on that success in the early years of secondary school, where unfortunately there has not been similar progress. We have invited 13 local education authorities to take part in a pilot programme from next September which will include trials of a new framework for teaching English, and professional development and support for teachers in literacy.
    Ms Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Earlier this week, I spent a morning at Carterhatch school, and last week I did the same at Alma primary school—both of them in my constituency. I participated in a literacy hour lesson in both and I was struck by how productive and how focused year 6 pupils are and how much good work was being done. I am concerned that after the transition to secondary school, which is a big change, pupils' level of achievement can slow down and, in some cases, regress. Can my hon. Friend outline in a little more detail what training and support will be provided for secondary school teachers to build on the success of the literacy hour and to continue raising standards at that vital point in a child's educational career?
    Mr. Wills: I reassure my hon. Friend that there will be considerable support for teachers in that regard. Our great success in raising literacy standards in primary schools has been due to the fact that we have an effective partnership between the teaching profession—the hundreds of thousands of teachers throughout the country, with their vision, inspiration, dedication and effort—and the Government. We are determined to continue that work into what my hon. Friend rightly identified as the critical early years in secondary schools. There are 13 pilot projects in 13 local education authorities—£6.5 million is available for those projects and there is a significant element of continuing professional development to support teachers in putting that policy into effect.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Can the Minister assure the House that he is making continuing and continual assessments of the performance gain of pupils who attend so-called summer schools compared with those who do not? While it gives me no joy to say it, will he confirm that the rate of improvement in standards of literacy and numeracy overall in the past three years has been less than it was in the equivalent three-year period before that?
    Mr. Wills: I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that everything that we do is properly evaluated and the results are published. Unfortunately, there are problems

    1103
    with literacy at key stage 3. That is why we are launching the programme and why we are determined to achieve in secondary schools the level of success with literacy that we have achieved in primary schools. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not rest until we achieve that.
    Helen Jones: When my hon. Friend considers the pilot programmes that he mentioned, will he ensure that he takes into consideration the needs of those who are teaching English in secondary schools who do not have their first qualification in that subject? Will he ensure that the training and development plans that are put into place take account of the particular needs of that group of teachers, who number several thousand, according to parliamentary answers that I have received?
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are considering that issue, which is important. It is also an important strand of the pilot projects that are under way.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Literacy problems are often one of the key issues for failing secondary schools. Does the Minister accept that dealing with such schools is hampered by the confusion of initiatives in the area, by rising secondary class sizes and by the Government's policy on exclusions? Given that one head has declined to take up a job at a failing school after the Government's recent naming and shaming exercise, and that three out of 10 superheads at failing schools have resigned, when will the Government admit the failure of their policy on failing schools? How many heads do they have to lose before they admit their failure to deliver?
    Mr. Wills: It is a source of great sadness to me that the hon. Lady does not recognise the considerable mess that we inherited and the extraordinary strides forward—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady scoffs, but the summary judgment on the Tory years of stewardship of the education system—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady will benefit from listening to this. The Moser report found that one in five adults is functionally illiterate. She is proud of that as a record of the Tory party's stewardship of the education system. That is the summary judgment on the Tory years of looking after our education system. We are putting that right. Unfortunately, there are failing schools. We are taking measures to deal with them—and we will deal with them.

    Specialist Schools
    Charlotte Atkins: How many specialist schools there are in the UK; and what the projected number is by 2001. [114605]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): As of September 1999, 403 specialist schools were operating in England. Our plans provide for about 200 specialist school designations by September 2001, taking the total number to more than 600.
    Charlotte Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous improvement in exam successes in my local specialist technology school, Clough Hall school, and the great work that it does in sharing information technology
    1104
    resources with the rest of the community? In view of that, will she tell me what support is given to joint school bids for specialist status, given the Government's enthusiasm for spreading the benefits of specialist school resources to the wider community?
    Jacqui Smith: I am aware of the very good results achieved at Clough Hall technology school, where the proportion of pupils gaining 5 A* to C grades rose from 27 per cent. in 1996 to 39 per cent. in 1999. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating staff and pupils on that excellent effort.
    My hon. Friend is right to highlight the process that schools go through to become specialist schools as essential to ensuring the level of success being achieved. I can reassure her that we will look carefully at plans advanced by schools working together to achieve the improvement in standards evident at Clough Hall. That improvement is, after all, the aim of this area of policy.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Does the Minister accept that the children who will gain most from education at a specialist school are those with ability and interest in that specialist subject? However, specialist schools are able to select only a small proportion of pupils on the basis of aptitude for the specialist subject, as defined by the Government. The maximum benefit is therefore being gained by the few, rather than by the many.
    The Government have already lost a court case brought by Wandsworth council on the adjudicator's decision to reduce partial selection in some of its schools. Moreover, the Government are in court today for a case involving the ruling of an adjudicator on selection for a specialist school. Will the Government accept, therefore, that their whole adjudication process is fundamentally flawed? Does it not reflect the Government's prejudice against providing the education that is right for every child? Does it not show that the whole adjudication system should be scrapped immediately?
    Jacqui Smith: No, the Government do not accept that. However, the hon. Lady's question illustrates the Opposition's obsession with the selection of the few. Our commitment is to raise standards for the many.

    Training Opportunities
    Mr. Paul Goggins: What action he is taking to provide jobseekers with more flexible training opportunities. [114606]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): We provide a wide range of help to unemployed people to support their efforts to move into work. All those opportunities are designed to be relevant to individual needs and the requirements of the local labour market.
    Mr. Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. I am also grateful for the Government's commitment to flexibility. However, will my hon. Friend examine the eligibility criteria for work-based learning for adults? That scheme provides work experience and training for adults who have been out of work for more than six months. Does

    1105
    she agree that that can sometimes be too long to wait? Will she consider making the training available earlier, when job seekers often are more highly motivated?
    Ms Hodge: We are introducing changes to the work-based learning scheme in April. Our aim is to reduce the constraints on the national vocational qualification framework, for example, and to focus on achieving better skills levels. We are always open to considering further improvements. We have asked the new deal taskforce to report back to us if changes are needed to improve the employability of people in the labour market.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What discussions has the Minister had with the Foreign Secretary to ensure that the outcome of any meetings that might take place in Portugal today will not damage the flexible labour market?
    Ms Hodge: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this country will be leading the discussions in Lisbon today, to ensure that those flexibilities relevant to a successful labour market will be sustained. Our record shows that there has been the biggest increase in 10 years in the number of people who are active in the labour market, that we are enjoying the lowest unemployment levels for 20 years, and that the Government have brought about the creation of 800,000 new jobs. That demonstrates that we can lead in Europe.

    Top-up Fees
    Mr. Peter Brooke: If he will make a statement on top-up fees in higher education. [114607]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I, and the House, have specifically ruled out top-up fees. Over the three years of the spending review, an additional £1 billion plus has been allocated to higher education. We have reversed the efficiency gains that were running at 4 per cent. under the previous Government, and we have also put a real-terms increase of 11 per cent. into universities. Therefore, we feel justified in ensuring that we do not fragment the system.
    Mr. Brooke: As the relevant Minister at Education questions a month ago deftly—even brazenly—avoided answering my question on whether the Government would accelerate their promised review of tuition fees, would the Secretary of State answer that question? If top-up fees have been ruled out, and if, as the Government indicated on Tuesday, schools remain their principal educational priority, how are we to sustain and maintain our world-class universities?
    Mr. Blunkett: First, I have already announced a 5.4 per cent. increase for 2001–02. Secondly, a £1.4 billion investment in research is taking place with the Wellcome Trust, with 75 per cent. of research funding going to the top 30 university departments.
    To pick up on the speech that I made at Greenwich, we want to ensure that universities in this country link together through the use of information technology—but also join, as many are doing, with those in Europe and
    1106
    north America to share teaching and research resources. We want to ensure that their excellence is available in this country and is enhanced by the available expertise in world-class universities elsewhere.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the experience in Australia, where top-up fees were introduced in 1996 and led to a reduction in overall applications and a narrowing of the social base of students going to Australian universities. Would not the replication of such a system in Britain run completely counter to our aspiration to get 50 per cent. of the under-30s into universities by 2010? Is not that a powerful reason why Ministers are right to resist Conservative party pressure on top-up fees?
    Mr. Blunkett: Anything that discourages open access to all universities and their departments in this country is, in my view, wrong. Those who argue for substantial differentiation in fees have to answer where the resources would come from to pay for those on low incomes to enter university departments, given that the top-up fee that they were levying would have to pay for that and for any improvement in quality. They would also have to answer how it would be possible for any Minister to argue with the Treasury for additional resources if those resources were going to be obtained by the universities levying fees on students rather than sharing the costs, as we are at present, with the taxpayer.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Secretary of State's reassurance that he has ruled out implementing top-up fees carry the same, more, or less authority than the Government's statement at the election that they had no plans to introduce tuition fees?
    Mr. Blunkett: As we did not say that, the question is grossly misleading. We indicated the changes that we would introduce in maintenance payments and the repayment system. We spelled that out in our documents and our manifesto. We indicated that we were perfectly willing to consider the recommendations on fees in the Dearing inquiry report. In fact, we ruled out the Dearing proposal, espoused by the Conservative party, that all students should pay a contribution towards fees. Instead, we exempted those on low incomes, so that in England more than one third of students pay no fees at all.

    School Playing Fields
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: What his policy is on school playing fields; and if he will make a statement. [114608]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): We are determined to protect playing fields that are needed by schools and their communities. To achieve that, we introduced legislation in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 that stops local authorities in England from disposing of, or changing the use of, school playing fields without the prior consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In June last year, we published for all to see the tough criteria against which we assess applications.
    Mr. Ottaway: I am baffled. I have just heard the Minister say that she is determined to protect playing fields in our schools. Is she aware that the council has applied to sell the playing fields of Haling Manor school in Croydon and to build a housing estate on the site? Will the Secretary of State sign that off, or is it the fault of the Labour council?
    Jacqui Smith: I am aware of that application, which was approved in February 1999, before the final criteria for applications were agreed and issued by my Department. To that extent, given that we have significantly toughened the criteria since we came to power, that decision has rather more relevance to the extremely lax situation that existed when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power than to the very strict criteria that are now in place.

    Coal-mining Areas (Labour Market)
    Mr. Jon Trickett: What steps his Department is taking to broaden participation in the labour market in former coal-mining areas. [114609]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): We recognise that serious problems are faced by communities in former coal-mining areas, in many of which, despite the growth in jobs nationally, unemployment rates are below the average for England as a whole. We are adopting two strategies. The first is to build capacity through the single regeneration budget and the European social fund specifically to improve labour market participation and get people back to work through a range of national programmes adapted flexibly to local circumstances. The second is the new deal for 50-plus, which is already available in two former coal-mining areas. It offers a tax-free employment credit of £60 a week, guaranteeing a minimum income for the first year back at work of £170 a week.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget £40 million to fund special action teams to help people in the worst unemployment blackspots. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly announce further details of the action teams and of their locations, but my hon. Friend will wish to know that six will be established in former coal-mining areas.
    In Doncaster, the new employment zone will offer tailored support for former mineworkers in addition to the £10 million made available through the Coalfield Regeneration Trust.
    Mr. Trickett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I pay tribute to the Government for the active way in which they are providing support for the former coal-mining areas such as my constituency, which were left devastated by the Conservative Government. Is my right hon. Friend aware that two schemes in my constituency—two intermediate labour markets, one at Havercroft and one at Sesku Ringway—are due to have their funding terminated next week? They are excellent schemes. Twenty long-term unemployed people now feel some enthusiasm for life, but the funding is about to expire, with the loss of experience that will result.
    1108
    What advice can my right hon. Friend offer to those of my constituents who feel somewhat dismayed about the future?
    Ms Jowell: The point that my hon. Friend makes about the two specific initiatives underlines the importance of implementing national programmes with sufficient flexibility to recognise important local innovations. I know that efforts are being made locally to replace the funding that will come to an end, but I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend as a matter of urgency to see whether further action can be taken.
    Mr. John Healey: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the high rates of labour market inactivity in the former coalfield areas, especially among men over 50? Our experience in Rotherham of piloting the adult new deal suggests that the roll out of the new deal for 50-plus, the employment credit and the new transition support announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget this week will all help. However, does she accept that there remains a problem with the attitude of employers, who too often will not accept the benefits that older workers can bring to their companies?
    Ms Jowell: I accept that there is a problem with some employers, but fortunately others are leading the way in demonstrating the benefits of diversity, as the number of vacancies increases and the number of people unemployed and seeking work falls. As part of the national implementation of the new deal for 50-plus, we shall redouble our efforts to build on the good experience of many employers of the stability, motivation and loyalty that come from having older people in their work force. That will be linked to the code of practice supported by employers that directly tackles age discrimination in the workplace.

    National Numeracy Strategy
    Mr. Steve McCabe: What support his Department has given to the national numeracy strategy; and if he will make a statement. [114610]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): We are providing annual funding of £55 million to support the numeracy strategy. In January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an extra £9 million in 2000–01 to enable more teachers to attend intensive training courses. Ofsted confirmed in a report published today that the strategy is already having a positive impact on schools.
    Mr. McCabe: Is not the support of parents crucial to the success of the measure? That is also true for many of the Government's initiatives. I know from personal experience that it can be difficult for parents—especially working parents—always to play as full a role as they would like in supporting such measures. What steps are the Department taking to ensure that parents and the wider community are able to support the national numeracy strategy?
    Mr. Wills: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we realise the importance both of parents and of the wider community in helping children to participate in the numeracy strategy and to achieve success through it. As my hon. Friend is aware, Maths Year 2000 was launched earlier this year; it has a key role for teachers and parents. I am delighted that there has been a tremendous response to the recent television campaign. Since 19 January, there have been about 500,000 requests through the freephone order line for the free pamphlet of tips for parents to help their children with maths.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given that it is excellent teaching and leadership that will have the greatest impact on numeracy, why has the Secretary of State appointed a bureaucrat from his own Department rather than an excellent classroom teacher or head teacher to head the new institute responsible for promoting excellence among head teachers?
    Mr. Wills: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken; we have not appointed a bureaucrat from our Department. I shall be happy to send him full details of everything that we are doing. I remind him of one salient fact about what we have already achieved in the numeracy strategy. We should all be grateful for the enormous effort that teachers have put into the strategy and note that, in one year, the number of children achieving level 4 and above at key stage 2 has improved by 10 percentage points.
    Mr. Phil Willis: We support much of the initiative. However, does the Minister accept that, despite the sums of money allocated centrally from the Government, what schools need is a consistent planning system so that they can fund year on year? In view of the Secretary of State's comments on the "Today" programme this morning, when he indicated that we shall have a nationally funded education system—if not within the lifetime of this Parliament, certainly within the lifetime of the next—will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with that way forward and that local education authorities are now redundant?
    Mr. Wills: Again, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. We should be happy to send him a transcript of the "Today" programme to point out exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the publication of the Green Paper for the details.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Bringing us back to numeracy, is my hon. Friend aware that one of the problems in delivering the numeracy strategy is the number of primary teachers who are not themselves particularly numerate? Although we are taking action in teacher education to ensure that there is testing of new teachers, what action is he taking to ensure that primary teachers in the classroom become more confident with numbers than they are at present? That is one of the reasons why we are not doing as well as we should in mathematics internationally.
    Mr. Wills: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that every primary school teacher is being trained in numeracy strategy, and will continue to be so trained.

    Secondary School Places (South-west London)
    Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the impact of school selection policies on the availability of secondary school places in south-west London. [114611]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): This information is not available centrally. Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty on individual local education authorities to ensure that there are sufficient school places for all children of compulsory school age in their area.
    Mr. Brake: I suppose I thank the Minister for her response, although it is not entirely helpful. Is she able to give my constituents any reassurances that next year their children will not be waiting in agony to find out whether they have a school place locally, when many of their friends will have already been allocated a place? Can she assure us that she believes that local children should have priority in local schools?
    Ms Morris: I know that it is a policy of the Liberal Democrats that the Greenwich judgment should be reversed, but that is not a view that we share. We think that parents should have the option of expressing a preference for a school that is outside their LEA boundary. Children often live closer to a school that is in a neighbouring LEA than to a school in their own LEA. I accept that the waiting game for knowing which place a child will get is difficult for parents and pupils, but I am afraid that it was ever thus. I assure the hon. Gentleman that every child will have a place.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: Could I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 28 MARCH—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
Motion on the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000.
WEDNESDAY 29 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 30 MARCH—Second Reading of the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 31 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 APRIL—Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords].
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
TUESDAY 4 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages on the Freedom of Information Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 APRIL—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Freedom of Information Bill.
THURSDAY 6 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill.
Opposition Day (7th Allotted Day) (Second part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the Ulster Unionist party. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 7 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to be reminded that, on Wednesday 29 March, there will be a debate on the aid system for flax and hemp in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Tuesday 4 April 2000:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 13048/99, Banana Imports; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 23-v and HC 23-x (1999–2000).
I should like to inform the House of business to be taken in Westminster Hall for April.
THURSDAY 6 APRIL—Debate on the Second Anniversary of NHS Direct.
THURSDAY 13 APRIL—Debate on the Ninth Report from the Education and Employment Committee Session 1998–1999 on Opportunities for Disabled People.
THURSDAY 20 APRIL—There will be no debates in Westminster Hall.
THURSDAY 27 APRIL—The House will not be sitting.
1112
The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the end of business on Thursday 25 May and return on Monday 5 June.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to learn next week's business, the provisional business for the week after and the provisional dates of the Whitsun recess. We hope that the right hon. Lady's voice lasts for the next half hour.
I am grateful for the response to the request that I made last week for more time to be given to consideration of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, and welcome the fact that we have been given that extra time. I am also grateful for the opportunity to debate on Tuesday the television licence fee increase.
May we expect a statement on Monday from the Prime Minister on the Lisbon summit? If we can expect that, might it be sharper in focus than the statement that we heard yesterday? When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury winds up the Budget debate on Monday, will he clarify the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday? He asserted:
It means that by 2003–04, NHS spending will have risen to 7.6 per cent. of gross domestic product.—[Official Report, 22 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 981.]
According to many independent health analysts, the figure of 7.6 per cent. can be reached only by including private health spending. We need some clarity on that.
Does the right hon. Lady understand our disappointment that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will no longer be taking part in the Budget debate? With concern about the impact of the high pound on exports—a subject that the Chancellor of the Exchequer skated over in his Budget—we would have welcomed the Secretary of State's participation in a debate that could have dealt with the plight of manufacturing industry. At the very least, might we expect a statement from him following his discussions with BMW? We also regret the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister from the Budget debate—left out, no doubt, because his Department was a significant loser.
The programme for 6 April looks congested, particularly if there is interest in the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. Might the right hon. Lady reflect on thinning it out?
Finally, almost all the business for the next two weeks is devoted to the Government's legislative programme, with no time whatever to debate other matters such as the Wakeham report, the intergovernmental conference White Paper, the Liaison Committee report, separate debates on the Armed Forces and the Dame Fritchie report on the abuse of patronage. Is not the Government's ambitious programme seriously distorting the work of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's welcome for the extra time, for which the Opposition asked, to debate the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill and the television licence prayer.
I anticipate that the Prime Minister will be making a statement after the Lisbon summit. I am slightly surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's less than generous remarks about yesterday's statement, given that it is only now, for the first time since Lady Thatcher's day, as I recall, that Prime Ministers have again started to come to the House.

1113
I think that I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend is the first Prime Minister to do so in order to deal with a domestic, as opposed to an international, matter. Considering how, however inaccurately, Opposition Members are always complaining about the Prime Minister not coming to the House, I would have thought that they would have welcomed him doing so. Of course we know that they do not welcome any announcement on health or education—or, indeed, on pensions—because they do not wish the British public to make a link between the improvements that they are seeing and the actions of this Government.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will no doubt take note of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have not seen the analysis to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was of course before the House only a few days ago, and I anticipate that he will do what he can to keep the House informed on the progress of any discussions in which he is engaged.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Deputy Prime Minister; there are a limited number of Budget debates and we wish to concentrate on its key themes. However, to describe my right hon. Friend's Department as a loser, when it has just been given an extra £280 million, seems rather an odd choice of words, but there we are.
The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh dear; there is a lot of Government legislation." Yes; that is one of the key purposes for which the House exists. I remind him that, contrary to what is often said from the Opposition Benches, there is nothing unusual or heavy about the Government's legislative programme. It is substantial because there is much work to do, but there is nothing unprecedented about the number of Bills that the Government are seeking to deal with in this Session.
The issue of abuse of patronage is interesting. It would be nice to have time to look back over the previous Government's record in those matters, but I fear that we shall have to deny ourselves that luxury.
Ms Glenda Jackson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the increasing number of early-day motions protesting at the proposed closure by Barclays bank of branches that are of vital interest to some of its most loyal customers—pensioners—and of particular concern to small businesses. In the light of the recent Cruickshank report, which alleged excessive profits by high street banks, is it not time that the House had a full-scale debate on services that are continually declining while customer charges and profits seem to be ever increasing?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. She is absolutely right about the interesting conclusions of the Cruickshank report. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time on the Floor of the House in the near future for such a debate; as she knows, that is always a problem for any Government. However, I draw her attention to the extra debating opportunities in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does the Leader of the House recognise the bitter disappointment in the north-west at the decision to site the replacement of
1114
the Daresbury synchrotron in the south of England? Does she agree that, given the problems described by the shadow Leader of the House on the value of the pound and investment and development, it is essential that a replacement Government research programme is soundly based in the north-west? Will she persuade the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to assure the House that the Government have recognised the issue created by the decision?
I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report, "Whatever Happened to News at Ten?" and particularly recommendation 56, which states:
We recommend that the ITC require ITV to reinstate News at Ten.
Can the right hon. Lady give us a report and bring a Minister to the House to say what pressure the Government have brought to bear on the Independent Television Commission to implement the recommendations in that Select Committee report?
Mrs. Beckett: My many right hon. and hon. Friends from the north-west have made plain to the Government how great is their concern about the decision on the partnership project, and the Government themselves have made it plain that they understand and sympathise with those concerns. However, I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will have observed that among the many proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget were extra resources for various regions. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is also making a separate point about science, and I believe that my right hon. Friend has indicated that he is aware of those concerns and has the matter under consideration.
On "News at Ten", I know how strongly that view is shared in the House. The hon. Gentleman asked me to bring a Minister to the House to deal with the matter; it is Department for Culture, Media and Sport oral questions on Monday.
Angela Smith: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 556, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell).
[That this House believes the £6 return charge imposed by GNER for carrying passengers' bicycles is excessive, unnecessary and inconsistent with the promotion of environmentally friendly transport; and calls upon the company to adopt a more positive and sympathetic approach to those who wish to combine rail and cycle travel.]
Does she share my horror at the information that Great North Eastern Railway is charging passengers a £6 return fare to put their bicycles on the train? When we are trying to encourage integrated, environmentally friendly and healthy transport, is that not a disgrace?
I am pleased to announce that my local railway, LTS, does not charge for bicycles, and neither do many other companies. Could we have an urgent debate on this matter to ensure that we get integrated transport, and that we are not being kiboshed by railway companies trying to force people to use their cars rather than their bicycles?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). Train operators are required to provide facilities for the carriage of cycles; they are free to make

1115
a charge, although it should be reasonable. However, it sounds to me like a classic subject for a Westminster Hall debate.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Lady do her best to find out whether it is possible to have a separate day's debate on the urgent matter of the funding of defence? Is she aware that so serious is the situation that defence manufacturing companies are having to lay people off because of the slow down in defence procurement, and that major top-level budget holders in the Ministry of Defence are seeing their budgets slashed in a manner that is wholly unacceptable not only for the good order of matters such as property management, but for operations and exercises? Does the right hon. Lady understand that there is real concern and anxiety about that, and that we should have an urgent debate?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand that anxiety. However, my recollection is that, although the defence budget is scheduled to fall by some 3 per cent. over the next three years, under the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member, it fell by a third.
Mr. Soames: That is not the point.
Mrs. Beckett: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that it is not the point, but it is the truth.
Gillian Merron: In view of the Chancellor's welcome announcement this week that many thousands of extra pounds will be going direct to schools, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on ensuring that extra Government resources get to children in schools and are not diverted or blocked by Conservative-run county councils such as Lincolnshire?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that there is always concern about whether education resources are being used for the purposes for which they are allocated, and I am well aware of Lincolnshire county council's track record on that. I always thought that it had something to do with the fact that, at least in my day, there had never been a chair of the education committee, under Conservative party rule, who had attended a state school or sent their children to one.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the right hon. Lady ensure that we are encouraged to send her our views on specific issues relating to the decision on whether to continue and make permanent the arrangements for sitting in Westminster Hall or to discontinue the experiment, if not next week, then well before she makes an assessment and a decision and puts a motion before the House? I am thinking in particular of what I consider to be the absurdity of the House, as it were, sitting in two places at the same time. That usually happens on Thursday afternoons.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, which I chair, is anxious to hear Members' reactions to the current experiment.
1116
We hope to assess it towards the end of the summer but, if Members have specific concerns of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has identified, they are more than welcome to send them to the Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Steve McCabe: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the remarks of Mr. Martin Barnes, director of the Child Action Group? He says:
This is a welcome Budget for the 4.4 million children living in poverty in the UK. We applaud the Chancellor's stubborn and consistent commitment to supporting families and children … We welcome the fact that as a result of this Budget up to one third of a million children will also be lifted out of poverty.
Given the stark contrast between the two main parties' approach—the Government seek to lift children out of poverty, whereas the Opposition, when in government, created the conditions that took them into poverty—could my right hon. Friend possibly find time for a debate on this important subject?
Mr. Soames: Answer that!
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Child Poverty Action Group has welcomed the response to what he rightly describes as a major problem. Notwithstanding the laughter that I heard from Conservative Members, it should be a source of shame to them that, during their tenure of office, so many children ended up living in the poverty from which this Government will need to try to rescue them.
The Budget was also welcomed by representatives of pensioners and single parents, as well as representatives of the business community. Indeed, it was welcomed by nearly everyone except the Conservative party.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the problems of the immigration directorate, which are turning the constituency offices of a minority of Members into outstations of the Home Office because the latter cannot answer letters, may we have a statement next week? Can we be told why not a penny of the £285 million which, according to Tuesday's statement, is to be devoted to law and order, will go towards reinforcing the directorate?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is more up to speed than I am in regard to how the allocation will be used. I do not know whether it will be used for the immigration directorate, but I am aware of the problems that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and he is right to say that many Members experience them. As he will know, the system is a source of long-standing difficulty, and the Government are working hard to overcome it.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Further to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), is she aware that the Conservative leadership of Redbridge council, supported by the Liberal Democrats, has adopted a budget allowing money made available under the standard spending assessment for education not to be directly passported to schools in my constituency? Will my right hon. Friend give us an early opportunity to debate the relationship between central Government and local government, and education spending? That would enable us to welcome the

1117
provision in the Budget for money to go directly to schools in my borough, rather than being frittered away on other matters by the Conservative council.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I know of his long-standing concern for the welfare of the schools in his borough, and the children who attend them. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future, but opportunities to question my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Deputy Prime Minister will give my hon. Friend a chance to air his worries.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Leader of the House will be well aware of the desperate plight of Britain's pig farmers. Will she arrange for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement to the House explaining exactly what the Budget has done for them? It should not take very long.
Mrs. Beckett: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Prime Minister intends to meet representatives of agriculture on 30 March. I take it that his remarks constitute a call for more resources for the industry. I note that Conservative Members continually call for more resources, which strikes me as incompatible with their other policies.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I return to the Government's inexplicable decision to transfer the synchrotron project to Oxfordshire from the north-west, a subject that was raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)? The decision may now be irreversible, but the Prime Minister told me only on Tuesday that the Wellcome Trust said that it would withdraw from the partnership if the decision were taken to locate the project at Daresbury. However, there is some confusion about the Wellcome Trust's position and that of the French Government. Many Labour Members—in the north-west group and in other parts of the party—would welcome an early debate so that there is full transparency and we understand all the reasons why the decision was taken to transfer technology from the north-west to Oxfordshire.
Mrs. Beckett: However much I know that my hon. Friend and other north-west Members are rightly expressing concern about the decision on behalf of their constituents, I fear that I cannot accept that it is inexplicable. Sadly, it is all too explicable. Nor, indeed, am I aware that there is any confusion at all about the reasons for it or about the position of the Wellcome Trust or the French Government. I either remind or tell him—I am not sure which—that the French Ministry of National Education, Research and Technology issued a press notice on 13 March saying:
This site was strongly supported by the French Partners in the project and we are delighted with the choice.
In a letter to The Guardian, the French ambassador said:
The French Government has consistently made clear its preference for the Rutherford Appleton site.
I understand that that has also always been the position of the Wellcome Trust. As I say, I understand the anxieties and concerns expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but, unfortunately, the decision is all too easy to understand.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Leader of the House ask a Minister to make a statement
1118
next week to correct the mistaken information that the Prime Minister gave the House yesterday? He said that national health service expenditure would increase
to 7.6 per cent. of gross domestic product.—[Official Report, 22 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 981.]
However, the Red Book clearly shows that the real figure is 6.4 per cent. He arrived at his figure by including private health expenditure. That is a simple drafting mistake—there is no big deal about it—and a statement would clarify the matter. However, that increase represents a doubling in private NHS expenditure and, therefore, a great departure from Government policy. We need a statement.
Mrs. Beckett: We had a statement and a debate yesterday and I do not think that the House needs any further opportunities to discuss the matter. Indeed, the point has already been made in this Question Time.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the bright and multifaceted diamond that was the Budget, there was possibly one face that was slightly darker than the others? Naturally, I shall advert to that. As we know, many pensioners who are just above the minimum income guarantee are poorer than those on the minimum income guarantee. They do not receive income support so they do not get various other benefits that come with it. When the Secretary of State for Social Security said that a report dealing with their difficulties would be made in the next Parliament, did he mean the Session beginning after the Queen's Speech in November or the Parliament beginning after a general election? Will she ask him to make a statement in the near future to clarify the position?
Mrs. Beckett: There will be questions and a debate on social security matters on Monday and my hon. Friend will find time to raise the matter then. However, he may be mistaken in thinking that no one who is not already on the minimum income guarantee is affected by yesterday's announcements. After all, those who are not in a position to take advantage of it—because of capital, for example—will find their circumstances substantially improved. One other group remains particularly difficult to assist and it is to those people, who have a small additional income as opposed to capital, to whom my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is turning his attention. I am sure that he will make proposals that he believes to be workable and effective at an earlier date if he is able to do so. Yesterday, he said what he anticipates to be the likely timetable for what is a particularly difficult policy area to resolve.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: With regard to the right hon. Lady's comment that we should be ashamed of our child poverty, may I remind her that the Rowntree Foundation has said that the divide between rich and poor has increased in the past two or three years under the Labour Government? When he returns from Munich, will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry make a statement not only on the future of the Longbridge plant, but on the concerns over the future of the Dagenham Ford plant? Is she aware that there is growing and informed speculation that engine production will be transferred from the Ford plant at Dagenham to the newly acquired Ford Land Rover plant?
Mrs. Beckett: As Ford has not yet acquired the Land Rover plant, as far as I am aware, and as the matters are

1119
still being discussed, that may be a little premature, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry keeps all those matters under review.
On the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the divide between rich and poor, I am sure that it has not escaped his memory that the Rowntree Foundation figures were on the first two years of the Government's life, during which they were following the Budget guidelines that were set by the party that he supports.
Mr. Graham Brady: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 547:
[That this House regrets the Government's decision to award the £200 million Diamond Synchrotron project to Oxfordshire and not to the existing synchrotron facility at Daresbury in Cheshire; notes that the long-term cost to the North West economy will be £550 million; notes that it will damage the science base of the North West risking the loss of over 200 high-skilled jobs, likely to go overseas; further notes that the Science and Technology Select Committee found no scientific case to favour Oxfordshire over Cheshire as a site for the new investment; and believes that this decision taken personally by the Prime Minister, shows that he has not given sufficient weight to the importance of regional policy or to the need to promote science and encourage investment in the North West.]
It stands in my name and has the support of Members of her party. It raises concern about the Government's decision to site the synchrotron project in Oxford and not in Cheshire. Is she aware that that will take some £500 million out of the north-west economy and that it is a major blow for regional policy? Following the comments of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I hope that we may secure all-party support for the motion, not just by-partisan support.
The Prime Minister was prepared to come to the House earlier in the week to explain to north-west Labour Members why he will ignore their views on the matter. Would it not be a courtesy for him to make time to come to the Chamber to make clear his reasons for taking that decision?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) yesterday and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) today were less than welcoming to the Prime Minister coming to the Chamber to make statements, other than at Prime Minister's Question Time. The Prime Minister has made plain his regret at the impact of the decision on the north-west.
1120
The hon. Gentleman will know, I hope, that the Government commissioned a review of the science base in the north-west and have committed in advance some £25 million from the science budget to implement the review recommendations. Therefore, the Government are aware of the concern and will do what they can to address it.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the Leader of the House aware of the report that was submitted by foreign policy supremo Solana at the European Union in which he describes the way in which the security situation in Kosovo is spiralling out of control? As she is unwilling to grant a single service debate at an early date, will she at the very least allow the House a foreign affairs debate, as our armed forces are gravely at risk and Mr. Solana's prognosis is dire in the extreme?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and that that leads him to call for a foreign affairs debate, but one of the things that led the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to recommend the creation of the experiment in Westminster Hall was the anxiety that a foreign affairs debate, which would cover, naturally, the entire world, was perhaps of less value to all participants than more focused debates of the type that we envisaged Westminster Hall accommodating. I warmly recommend that the hon. Gentleman seeks such a debate on Kosovo, if he wishes to.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Following the Lisbon summit, will it be possible to have a full-day debate on the internet and e-democracy? That would give us an opportunity not only to expose the glorification of St. Tony and the nauseating No. 10 website, but, on a wider scale, to look at the possibility of inter-activity with Standing Committees in their pre-legislative stages and Select Committees. Archive material may be put on some of the Select Committee websites, so that people may be able to access that, give their own suggestions as to areas of concern and make representations to Select Committees on the issues that they are discussing.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman made various suggestions on how we might, in future years, better exploit the opportunities offered by the internet. He will know that some of the House's own Committees are examining that matter. I suggest that, first, he should write particularly to the Information Committee to raise some of those issues. Many of the points that he made are a matter for the relevant Select Committee and for other Committees. However, I think that, as time goes on, ever more members of the public and hon. Members will wish to take advantage of the opportunities that he described.

Personal Statement
1 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: The Parliamentary Commissioner has held that I breached the code of conduct for Members of Parliament in not making clear to the Lord Chancellor's Department that, when giving a reference for a person for an honour, the person concerned had, not long before, given me a loan. This was clearly an error of judgment on my part, for which I have already apologised unreservedly in person to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I have made it clear that I fully accept that I deserve to be criticised.
The Committee has recommended that I apologise in person to the House. I wish to say sorry sincerely to the House, without reservation or hesitation of any kind.
I have explained in detail to the Standards and Privileges Committee how the circumstances of the reference came about. It was not initiated by me. I responded to a request for a reference from a completely disinterested person. However, I accept that those are matters of explanation and are not an excuse.
I hope that it will be appreciated by all concerned that it is not always possible to have total recall of events. I can only say to the House that, at all times when these matters have been under consideration, I have sought to co-operate fully with the Parliamentary Commissioner and to give truthful and accurate responses.
I also recognise that, when there is any criticism of any individual Member of Parliament, it reflects on Members of Parliament as a whole. I should thus wish to apologise to each and every hon. Member for an error of judgment and a mistake on my part, and my part alone.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 March].

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

  (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

  (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

  (d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

  (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

  (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

  Question again proposed.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
1.2 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I know that the whole House will want to congratulate the Chancellor on Tuesday's excellent Budget statement, and particularly to applaud his announcement on additional investment in education and employment. This Budget will provide not only that additional investment, but substantial investment in the national health service, in tackling crime and in supporting and helping retired people. It is a Budget that really rewards hard work and reinforces the something-for-something commitment that we have been making.
The Budget underpins success in our schools, as it supports our teachers' work, our pupils' commitment and success and the hard work of the Employment Service and of hard-working families across the country. All those people will find that their endeavours are being supported by the Chancellor's announcement this week.
In the Budget, we have a commitment from the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of almost £4.5 billion extra for education in the coming year alone. That is an 8.5 per cent. real-terms increase in England, with more than 10 per cent. in real terms going into schools in the coming year. That is how the Government reward those who have given their wholehearted commitment to raising standards and to building the foundations for further success in the future.
In Tuesday's announcement, the Chancellor said that schools across the country would immediately receive a massive uplift in funding, which would enable them not simply to deal with the deficits that were built up in the 1990s, but to engage in new undertakings, such as obtaining new books and equipment or taking on additional staff. Additionally, heads and governors are to have freedom in determining how the new resources are used, to ensure that the resources not only meet their particular needs, but clearly target the standards agenda that we have agreed with them. For primary schools there will be an uplift of between £3,000 and £9,000 for the coming year. For secondary schools there will be an uplift of £30,000 to £50,000 and for all special schools there will be an uplift of £15,000. Special schools have under 200 pupils so the money will provide a substantial per pupil uplift to support special education.
Over the three years of the spending review, we will see an enormous and sustained commitment to education spending such as we never saw under the previous regime. We have already committed ourselves to reversing the trend of reductions that took place in 1995, 1996 and into the 1997 Budget. We have seen a reversal of the downward trend in the proportion of gross domestic product spent on education and I can announce to the House that the £4.5 billion increase will take the proportion of GDP in the coming year to over 5 per cent. I am pleased that we have been able to make that progress so rapidly.
The £300 million that we agreed to distribute to schools is complemented by a £20 million uplift in the recovery programme for primary pupils to be invested in booster classes, which have been so successful. That will mean a doubling of the investment we had already indicated for such classes, giving children who would not otherwise
1124
have the opportunity to do so the chance to recover on what is done in the classroom and in after-school activities.
Madam Speaker—is it still Madam Speaker in the Chair? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Cough when you leave, Madam Speaker.
The increase for booster classes will put pupils whose parents cannot afford to buy such classes on equal terms with those whose parents have traditionally bought crammer and booster classes for their children, often in addition to preparatory school fees in more affluent parts of the country. That is a major contribution towards the uplift in literacy and numeracy of which we have been so proud over the past year.
When that is taken with the money that we have already located within the Department's budget—the £50 million that tops up the revenue support grant—we genuinely believe that schools will be able to move forward with confidence from 1 April, knowing that their endeavours will be underpinned by the resources necessary to achieve their goals.
A dramatic improvement in the progress of primary schools now needs to be matched by a similar step change in the secondary sector. In my north of England conference speech at the beginning of January and in two major speeches on secondary education this month, I have spelt out how critical it is that we transform the education of those aged 11 to 16 who have often found that the progress they made in primary schools has been reversed in the first year of secondary school. In fact, 30 per cent. of pupils in year seven—the first year of secondary school—have seen their progress reversed. That is totally unacceptable and the substantial increase in resources for secondary education is designed to ensure that the programmes that we are laying out for secondary pupils can now be reinforced by the resources necessary to achieve their goals.
We have said that we will be investing heavily in changes to what is known as key stage 3—the 11 to 14 curriculum. We have laid out the way in which literacy and numeracy will be reinforced, changes to the science curriculum and support for new science teaching, and new and imaginative ways to ensure that secondary pupils can be engaged and retained within the education system. We will be saying more during this year about how we can increase the diversity of provision and opportunity so that vocational education and connection with the world of work can be commonplace to ensure that those who disengage themselves from school, or who are excluded from school, can once again be engaged with the education system and, therefore, with their own future.
We are announcing today an additional £60 million to underpin the fresh start and city academy programmes. That money will be available for existing and new fresh start school proposals and for the city academy initiative that I announced a week ago. For city academies, we intend that the money will partner the voluntary and private sector contributions that will be made. It will ensure that we transform the environment in which teachers teach and pupils are taught.
It is clear that the environment in which teachers work is important and the optimism and hope that decent premises and good equipment can engender make a

1125
difference to their professional commitment. That can help a school to re-emerge from failure and the threat of imminent closure.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister for School Standards told the Select Committee yesterday that there were no plans to hold ballots involving local parents when it was proposed to turn a failing school into a city academy? Why does he not abolish ballots on grammar schools, which are about destroying diversity in schools, and introduce a system of ballots for converting failing schools into city academies, which is about creating diversity in schools? That would involve parents in the positive side of education, not the negative side.
Mr. Blunkett: If a school is going to close because it is collapsing around the pupils and parents who are engaged there, the options are dramatic change or closure. That is obvious. Grammar school ballots are about a change in admissions policy. We are not proposing to change admissions policies in the code of guidance that the House has approved for city academies. There will not be a vote on the admissions policy, which includes all the options that are currently available to schools in an area. We want to address the needs of local pupils who have been let down by the failure of the school. Drawing in parents and pupils from somewhere else would simply distribute the problem of the pupils who have been underachieving to neighbouring schools. That is why it is important to address failure where it exists, rather than simply moving the deckchairs on the Titanic as a school goes down.
The aim of fresh start and the city academies is to address a situation in which dwindling numbers, caused by parental preference, leave a school unviable and therefore likely to close in the immediate future. We have seen time and again across the country, particularly in the most deprived areas, that pupils who are left at such schools get a less satisfactory education as the months and years go by, providing them with less opportunity than is acceptable. The new system and the investment that we are announcing today will address that problem head-on.
This is about diversity. Beacon school status involves one school supporting and helping another. Specialist schools have funds specifically allocated for outreach to share their specialism with the community and other schools. Those ideas, together with excellence in cities and the education action zones, ensure that help is targeted where it is most needed and that collaboration and co-operation are at the heart of our programme. Schools have to share with each other the benefits that they gain from extra resources, the specialism and commitment of their staff and the targeted help that they can offer to the community. Rather than operating in a market that knocks one school out or lets one school succeed at the expense of others, schools must be prepared to share their expertise in a way that will enable all schools and all pupils to succeed.
We are proud of the way in which failure has been overcome. We now have more schools coming out of special measures than going in for the first time. Over the past 12 months we have had 91 more schools coming out of special measures than went in. We are turning round schools on special measures in 17 rather than 25 months. That is a dramatic change since the general election. We are doing this to ensure that children in those schools and
1126
parents choosing or exercising a preference for those schools will know that they will get the sort of education that others take for granted.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that if a school is in special measures, it will be treated equally when it makes an application for the new deal for capital improvement? A school in my constituency needs that boost for a capital programme but it is concerned that it will not be treated equally when the application is submitted.
Mr. Blunkett: From schools desperate for the doubling of capital investment to which we have already committed ourselves, I hear the grumble, "Why should schools on special measures get preference?" I assure my hon. Friend that there will not be discrimination. We need to be able to invest in the action plan and in the recovery programme of such schools so that the new deal for schools capital and the way that it is targeted is geared entirely to ensuring that the standards in a school can be improved. I am sure that, with my ministerial colleagues, we can ensure that the new deal for schools investment programme will be part of the programme of recovery, as will the excellence in cities initiative, an extension of which I can announce.
With the money that was allocated on Tuesday, we can announce a substantial increase in the number of areas that will be entitled to the programme. The programme includes mentoring and support for individual pupils and their families, learning support units that ensure that children who are disruptive or who have a particular problem are out of the classroom but not out of education, and ensuring that our investment in gifted and talented children to tailor education to the needs of the child, whichever school he or she is in, can be enhanced and increased.
We are therefore announcing that the 450 secondary schools in the excellence in cities programme will be almost doubled to 750, which is one in five schools. It will cover 21 new local authority areas, including Tyne and Wear, Gateshead, Newcastle, North and South Tyneside and Sunderland and the boroughs that make up Teesside: Redcar, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool. It will also include major cities that were not included in the original round: Bristol, Leicester, Stoke-on-Trent, Kingston upon Hull and Nottingham. In addition, we shall extend the existing programme of excellence to areas in London, including Barking and Dagenham, Brent and Ealing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Hear, hear.
Mr. Blunkett: I am glad that I got a "Hear, hear" from my hon. Friend, who of course had no influence over this decision.
In the north-west, the boroughs of Wirral, St. Helens and Halton, together with Rochdale in Greater Manchester, will be included. The extension will also include a new programme for primary schools. They will now be included in the inner cities programme. About 200,000 primary pupils will initially be included in the programme in existing excellence in cities areas. It will

1127
then be extended to the new areas from next year. I hope that with the assistance of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the spending review as a whole, I shall be able to do more through excellence in cities in the years to come. It is a programme that even my most vehement opponents from left and right have not so far denounced, although I am obviously—
Valerie Davey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Blunkett: I knew that I had spoken too soon, but not in this case, I think.
Valerie Davey: My right hon. Friend is quite right. I want to welcome the initiative being taken in Bristol, in particular, and to ask whether he will endorse again the nature of this development, which, in sharp contrast to the previous Government's city technology proposals, instead of being divisive and establishing new schools in isolation from the rest of the school community, promotes both excellence and collaboration?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes. That is why I emphasise the crucial nature of collaboration and partnership in all our initiatives to target disadvantage and support achievement. Excellence in cities and the city academies involve partnership and a commitment to working with the most difficult children and not only those who are already succeeding. The measure of the success of our partnership with teachers, heads and parents will be what we have done for those who were previously excluded: those who were outside the system and were least likely to succeed within it.
Mr. St. Aubyn: The Secretary of State talks about partnership in the new schemes. Why did it take 10 years for any Labour Member to visit Emmanuel college in Gateshead, which was stretching out its hand in partnership to the local community and was shunned by the local education authority and by the 10 Labour Members in the surrounding constituencies?
Mr. Blunkett: I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman asking me that question about 12 months ago in Education and Employment questions. The answer is exactly the one that I gave then. I am sure that he will remember it well, given that I remember the question.
Today we are addressing the backlog of neglect for all schools: not only those that were fortunate enough to get extra resources in the past but those that are now getting extra resources for the future. We will further invest in overcoming the backlog of disrepair, neglect and decay in too many of our schools.
As part of the £837 million programme for England, I am announcing a £250 million boost to the new deal for schools capital programme, ensuring that a further 3,000 schools will have investment in overcoming inadequacies such as leaking roofs, windows that let in the cold and wet, temporary classrooms—there are still 10,000 of those—and the neglect of the basic fabric that has led to the deterioration of buildings over the past two decades.
We have already doubled the capital investment in education. The extra money will enable us to do far more in the coming two years, which will be welcomed in
1128
constituencies throughout the country. We will shortly announce how it is to be distributed. In the previous round of new deal for schools, we had bids that exceeded the resources available fivefold, so we will not reopen the bidding process, but we will work with schools and education authorities to tackle the priority needs that it was not possible to meet under the previous round. I hope that all concerned will welcome that.
We will also be able to tackle what might be described as the school and classroom of the future and to experiment with how the school day, the school year and the nature of teaching will change in years to come. I stress that we want to work in partnership with both the profession and education authorities in achieving change. We want to ensure that experiments are evaluated and that people are free to take new steps in finding out what works best.
The experiment in Telford city technology college—with the learning day instead of the traditional school day, the use of technology and the provision of teachers as learning managers and mentors—has been extremely successful. We want to learn from such programmes in looking to the future for a secondary school system that matches the aspirations that we all share. It is, therefore, crucial to ensure that the worlds of school and work are developed in partnership together. That is why I wish to stress this afternoon the importance of our investment in skills and in employment. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) will spell out with me over the next few weeks the way in which the additional resources for employment will be targeted at extending our programmes, and intensifying the new deal programme and the work with young people at an early stage. That will include directed help to particular areas of the country where there are low levels of employment and high levels of unemployment, and will include employment zones, which we announced two weeks ago.
In the months ahead, we shall talk about the development of specific help for those moving from long-term unemployment back into work, including lone parents, and how we can assist that progress further. We shall also examine how we can extend the success of the new deal for the under-25s to the long-term unemployed over the age of 25, including from this April the extension of the pilot programmes for getting the over-50s back to work. The older one gets, the more important the work with the over-50s seems.
We can work closely with the Employment Service and its partners in the private sector on enhancing the work that has been done in the past two years in making the new deal a success, including the progress that has been made with 800,000 men and women in work who previously would not have had a job and the improvement of 70 per cent. in youth unemployment. All that links the ability to learn with the ability to earn one's own living and to have optimism—not simply for those who have been unemployed and who now have a job, but the optimism that is passed from adults to their youngsters, so that generational disadvantage and the decay and misery of lack of aspiration and expectation can be overcome at last. In some of our most deprived areas, that is a critical factor in inspiring young people to believe that working in school is worth while at all.

1129
Incidentally, we are not ducking exclusion from schools, which is difficult for Government and teachers alike. We are not forcing head teachers to keep children who are disruptive in the classroom; far from it. The 200 learning support units that are already in train—the number of which will be substantially increased by the investment that I have announced today—will enable us to continue to give an education to those who would otherwise be on the street. It is truancy and permanent exclusion from schools that lead to permanent exclusion from the world of work and society. That is why more than 70 per cent. of those who have been long-term truants or excluded end up in prison and why the prison population regrettably consists on average of people with a reading age of eight or below. Even those who turn to religion—[Interruption.] On that note, Madam Speaker leaves. I must have said something amiss.
Mr. Phil Willis: She has gone to pray.
Mr. Blunkett: I know that she does so regularly, in order that we in the House might get it right and be brief, so I will make progress.
The measures that we have taken today will ensure that we can make that link between the education system and the future of young people. They will also mean that we can take steps to overcome the problem of the variation in teacher-pupil ratios in secondary schools—an issue on which we have experienced criticism from the Opposition. My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards dealt with that issue at Question Time, so I do not intend to go over it in great detail. Suffice it to say that the investment of extra money in secondary education from this April will allow for 3,500 extra teachers, if that is what head teachers choose to prioritise. It will ensure that the 10-year worsening of pupil-teacher ratios in secondary schools can be reversed. I want to make it clear that where we ring-fence funds and target them at reducing pupil-teacher ratios or class sizes, we take responsibility for doing so. We have done that for five to seven-year-olds: we have earmarked the money and there is a clear and specific research argument for undertaking that reduction.
When heads have a choice, as they do in secondary schools, about how they organise their classes, which they do, and prioritise the extra money, I do not accept that the Government have a responsibility to order them to spend that money on teachers as opposed to teaching assistants, information technology, books or equipment, merely to make the Government's figures on secondary school PTRs look better. Again and again in this Parliament, I will make it clear that if we mean that heads should have greater freedom to determine how they spend their budgets, we should back that up by being prepared to support them if they choose to achieve our standards agenda slightly differently from the way in which politicians would wish. I hope that the Opposition parties will acknowledge the intellectual rigour of that argument and will stop whining that we have not done what they did not do in 20 years.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: This is an opportunity to have a second bite at this question in one day. I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks because those of us who want progress in education want it to be based on research, good practice and evaluation. The Select Committee on Education and Employment recently
1130
investigated this subject and talked to Mr. Woodhead, who asserted strongly that progress must be based on secondary school heads having the flexibility to make their own decisions to get the best quality results that they can.
Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. The Select Committee has been keen to ensure that facts influence the decisions that are taken.
Last Tuesday was the first day of spring and now there is a new spring in the step of heads, teachers and non-teaching staff, who are looking forward to increased pay under the new pay and performance arrangements and to increased books, equipment and staffing and, of course, subsequently to increased success. This is what the Budget was all about: reinforcing hard work and achievement, underpinning the successes that have already been gained and providing people with optimism for the future. It is optimism about having the future in their hands, working with us and supported by us, to enable them to make decisions that influence their future and that of their children, and to ensure that they can earn their living and make choices within their family. It will ensure that the Government of the day are seen to be supporting that hard work and innovation.
We are very pleased about the £1 billion extra throughout the United Kingdom for education, the increased investment from the windfall levy for employment—
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is just in time.
Mr. McWalter: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is why I jumped up. While I congratulate him on the substantial resources that have gone into education and on his negotiations to achieve that, I am perplexed about the extra money for schools. On average, a school will get £40,000, which is welcome money and it absolutely addresses the issue. However, there may be worries about using the money for extra staff when it may not be forthcoming in future years and those staff may have to be laid off. Will he give an assurance—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is an over-long interruption of a peroration.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) only just got his intervention in. With the additional £1 billion for 2000–01, it is obviously recognised that the expenditure commitment from this year will have implications for later years. Decisions on funding for schools from 2001–02 onwards will be taken as part of the spending review, but the additions announced in Tuesday's Budget will be additional, on-going revenue. There is no intention that the money announced should be a one-off addition. We will carry it forward as part of the additional funding in the spending review, enabling schools to make decisions now that they can be sure will be carried forward from April 2001.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is sitting beside me. I hope that his presence will reinforce the assurance that I am giving to the House.

1131
How could we possibly start programmes in September 2000, with a view to ending them in March 2001? We are talking about additional funding—additional money going to my Department and additional spending in the future. I look forward to the discussions in the spending review that will carry forward the Government's commitment to education, education, education.
1.36 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: I begin by making it absolutely clear to the House that the Opposition welcome increased spending on education. We want more money to go to schools, to be spent on improving the education of children. We have welcomed extra spending announced by the Government before, but that does not mean that we always think that the Government spend the money well, or that the methods of allocation cannot be improved. However, we do welcome extra spending on education.
I am sure that many schools and governors will be very interested in the Secretary of State's response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). The Secretary of State said that the £1 billion extra for 2000–01 announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday will be on-going additional expenditure. If that is the case, the Secretary of State should ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to issue an amendment to the Red Book, which states that that extra £1 billion applies only to 2000–01 and that it does not carry through into other years.
Before I speak about schools and education, I should like to touch briefly on employment issues and the Secretary of State's comments about the new deal. The Government consistently tell us about the success of the new deal, and the matter came up earlier in Education and Employment questions. However, the history of the new deal is worth examining.
The Government came to power in May 1997, having made an early pledge to get 250,000 long-term young unemployed people off the dole and into work. As it happened, they took office at a time when there were only 167,000 long-term young unemployed, thanks to the success of the previous Government's economic policies in getting people into jobs—so the pledge that I mentioned had been broken before the Government even took office.
Since then, the Government have made various claims about the number of young people getting work as a result of the new deal. As we know from the Red Book, those claims are incorrect. The Government do not accept what the Red Book accepts—that 50 per cent. of those who come off the new deal at some stage and get jobs would have found those jobs anyway. Their success in finding work is not a result of the new deal.
Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Lady accept that the Red Book's reference is to the research carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which used statistics from the first year of the new deal to the beginning of 1999? The institute stated that the
1132
figure to which the hon. Lady referred was its best estimate. That estimate was not made by the Treasury or my Department.
Mrs. May: The reference in the Red Book is indeed to "independent evaluation". That evaluation has been accepted by the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, who has stated categorically that the figures for the new deal scheme contain at least 50 per cent. dead weight. Therefore, only half the number that the Government claim have got jobs through the new deal have in fact done so.
It is important to make one other reference to the new deal figures. The Government should look at the rate at which young long-term unemployed people have been getting jobs since the new deal was introduced and compare it with what happened under the previous Government. Between May 1993 and May 1997, nearly 5,000 young long-term unemployed people a month were getting employment. Since the new deal started, that figure has fallen to 2,771.
Charlotte Atkins: Will the hon. Lady say whether she would abolish the new deal?
Mrs. May: The hon. Lady will have to curb her impatience a little longer. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering. The hon. Lady will have to curb her impatience a little longer for proposals to get unemployed people into work. I suggest that before she rises to say what a good job the new deal is doing, she looks carefully at the cost of each job under the new deal. She should look at the reality of the figures for the new deal, which show that it has not been getting as many young people into work as the Government have claimed. She should look at the rate at which young people are getting jobs under this Government, which is nearly half of what it was under the previous Government. She should listen to employers who complain that many people sent to them under the new deal either have no interest in their area of employment or are not suited to it, and that the scheme could work better if the Government actually listened to what employers say. The sad fact is that the Government are making many claims for the new deal, but they are failing to deliver.
Mr. Peter Bradley: I am even more confused than I was when the hon. Lady replied to my hon. Friend's intervention. If the new deal is not serving the unemployed and is not serving business, why will she not say that she would abolish it?
Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman's confusion is not a matter for me; it is a matter for him. Again, I suggest that he looks at what the Government are claiming for the new deal and the reality. [Interruption.] I suggest that the Labour Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), is a little patient and curbs his excitement. I can understand why the Government are keen to hear of better ideas for getting young long-term unemployed people jobs—it is because of the expensive failure of the new deal.
I repeat that we welcome extra spending on education, particularly on schools, but then, we welcomed the £19 billion extra announced in the comprehensive spending review. However, it did not take long to realize

1133
that it was not £19 billion and that, at the best estimate, it was only £9 billion, and that was before the issues of real terms and the underfunding of teachers' pay awards were taken into account.
The best description of the way in which the Government have manipulated the figures on education spending was given at the weekend in one of the newspapers by a former Member of the House, Phillip Oppenheim. [Interruption.] Perhaps Labour Members would like to listen and understand what their Government have done with the figures. He made the point that if someone was 3 ft and grew by 1 ft a year over three years, they did not end up being 9 ft tall. That is exactly what the Government have done with the figures on education spending—they have double and treble-counted.
I say to the Secretary of State, who finds this so amusing, that the issue for him is the expectations that teachers, parents and governors had of what the schools would receive. Those expectations have been dashed. There is considerable disillusionment in schools among teachers, governors, parents and others because what they thought was going to be an additional £19 billion for education has turned out to be nothing of the sort. We see disillusion setting in because the Government are failing to meet their manifesto commitment to increase the share of national income spent on education over and above that spent by the previous Conservative Government. The extra £1 billion that the Secretary of State announced today will do nothing to meet that commitment and nothing to ensure that, during their term in office, the Government will be spending more as a proportion of national income on education than the previous Conservative Government. In fact, they will be spending less.
The Secretary of State has said that £300 million will go directly to schools and that it will be up to heads to decide how it should be spent. I welcome his conversion to our policy that heads should have freedom to decide how money is spent in their schools. I would like heads to have freedom of decision over the whole of their school's budget, rather than the small proportion that the Secretary of State has announced. It is common sense that heads know best what is in the interests of children in their classrooms.
However, the Secretary of State's comments this afternoon about the importance of freedom for heads to determine how to spend their budget will be met with incredulity by former grant-maintained schools which had that freedom but had it taken away by the Government. Those schools were able to exercise the sort of freedoms that the Secretary of State now talks about over the whole of their budget and they flourished and improved the quality of education. That freedom was taken away from them. One can imagine how they feel, hearing of the Secretary of State's damascene conversion. I should be interested to see what happens when he meets the former grant-maintained school heads who have consistently complained about the removal of that freedom.
Ms Linda Perham: If heads were so keen on the freedom that grant-maintained status provided, why did so few schools decide to go grant-maintained? Only 1,100 out of 24,000 schools did so.
Mrs. May: Perhaps the hon. Lady will talk to Labour councillors who, in all too many areas, conducted vendettas against schools that wanted to go grant-maintained and exercise their freedoms.
1134
When he referred to the money that will go to primary and secondary schools, the Secretary of State did not refer to the new requirements that secondary schools will have to meet. I hope that in the reply to the debate we shall hear exactly what the new requirements will be. It is stated in the Red Book that an average secondary school will receive its extra funding only
In return for meeting new requirements.
Will those be targets set for exam results or key stage 3 results? How will they be measured? I hope that we shall hear when the money will be made available to schools if performance targets are set. Schools will want to know how that money will come to them and how they can succeed in getting it.
The Secretary of State reels off the figures, but there is concern among primary schools with large numbers of pupils—say 400—that will receive £9,000 that secondary schools with similar numbers of pupils will receive £30,000. The Secretary of State will find that many primary schools will question the way in which the money has been divided.
For schools that have in recent years faced a cut in their budget of perhaps as much as £250,000, the extra money will go some way towards relieving the pressure, but it certainly will not meet all their requirements. Schools such as the London Oratory have faced a £250,000 budget cut. I do not know whether the Secretary of State will now advise the Prime Minister on whether he needs to make his parental contribution to the London Oratory, given that an extra sum of money is available.
Mr. Sheerman: I congratulate the hon. Lady on beginning her speech with a welcome for the extra spending. Although she talks about reality and figures, she has not yet said one word about how she balances her criticisms of spending—obviously she intends to spend more—with the commitment given by the leader of her party to cut taxes. Can she square those two matters?
Mrs. May: That is a bit rich coming from a Member whose Government claim that they can cut taxes and, at the same time, increase spending on health and education.
Head teachers should receive their whole budget, with the freedom to control their spending. That is what we shall introduce under our free schools policy—we shall set the school free and, once again, trust the professionals.
This morning, on the "Today" programme, the Secretary of State was interviewed following comments from Sir Jeremy Beecham, the leader of the Local Government Association and a leading, senior Labour councillor, who has expressed concern about the impact on local government—especially local education authorities—of the Government's decision on spending controls. I suggest to the Secretary of State that to have Labour councillors complaining that he is taking responsibility away from them is hardly the best way to spearhead the Labour party's local government election campaign.
The Government are reducing the role of local authorities, by stealth, in various ways. Under the Learning and Skills Bill, the role of LEAs in sixth-form funding will be removed. City academies will be taken

1135
away from the direct control of LEAs. The extra funding announced by the Secretary of State will go directly to schools and not be channelled through local authorities.
Mr. Blunkett rose—
Mrs. May: Will the Secretary of State bear with me? I may be about to answer the question he was about to ask, so he may not need to rise.
Mr. Blunkett: Shall I answer the question, and then the hon. Lady can ask it?
Mrs. May: By stealth—by the back door—in all those ways, the Government are reducing the role of LEAs. However, they do not have the guts to say that LEAs should have a new role and that schools should receive the whole of their budget with the freedom to spend it as they want. That is what we have said we will do under our free schools policy—local authorities will continue to have a role in education, but it will be different from the one they have at present. Schools will be free to spend their budget as they think fit.
Mr. Blunkett: May I clarify the answer to the question that I would have asked if I had been able to intervene a few seconds earlier? If the new Conservative policy involves direct funding to schools, what role would the education authority have in the distribution of those resources?
Mr. Crispin Blunt: None, I hope.
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman has answered the question. If he is correct, does that imply that a Conservative Government would set up not only a national funding formula, but an agency equivalent to the Funding Agency for Schools for England to distribute the resources? Would they thus accept full responsibility for the pupil-teacher ratio, the books, the equipment and the running costs of each of the 24,000 schools?
Mr. Willis: That would have been my question, too.
Mrs. May: I am happy to answer the Secretary of State's question and the putative question from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). We are considering the formula for funding schools under the free schools policy. Many teachers have told us that a national funding formula should be adopted by the Government. I understand that the Secretary of State said this morning that he, too, might consider such a formula and the adoption of such responsibilities.
What is important is to ensure that money for education is spent in the best possible way—in the interests of children in our schools and of improving education. In order to do that, we need to give heads the common-sense responsibility to decide what is in the best interests of the children in their schools. That is the right approach.
I am interested in the Secretary of State's reference to freedoms. That is yet another Government U-turn in only a few weeks. For example, there were an amazing number of U-turns last week on the issue of selection.
1136
The Secretary of State told us today that he was expanding the excellence in cities programme, but I must point out to him that that includes an expansion of selection. Selection is a key element of that programme, with pupils not being selected by aptitude as the Government say they will be for specialist schools, but being accepted on the basis of ability. That will give the 5 to 10 per cent. most able pupils in such schools a different education from that received by the other children in those schools. The Government claim that there will be no selection by examination or by interview. Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain how the children in excellence in cities schools are selected for their ability if it is not by examination or interview.
That is not the only Government U-turn that we have witnessed—there have also been U-turns on freedoms and selection. Last week, the Secretary of State was spinning around in a whirl on the issue of grammar schools. One minute he was against them, then he was not against them and then he was against them again. Grammar schools woke up after the vote in the House of Lords feeling that the pressure on them had been relieved and that their future was once again certain, only to find their hopes dashed by the Secretary of State's intention to reintroduce ballots when the Learning and Skills Bill comes before this House. Grammar schools now know that their future is uncertain and that they are under constant threat directly as a result of the Government's actions.
Another U-turn was made on the issue of city academies. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) has left the Chamber. She asked the Secretary of State to confirm how terrible city technology colleges were and I understood him to confirm that point. However, the city academies are very much based on the approach of the city technology colleges. The hon. Lady spoke about division, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) pointed out, much of the division—where it existed—was caused not by the creation of city technology colleges, or by their heads and teachers, but by Labour councillors who refused to meet the CTCs. For example, in Bradford, they refused to allow local authority schools to play sports against the CTCs. They froze out CTCs and excluded them from the local community of education and the local community of schools.
Last week, the Secretary of State announced the setting up of the city academies, and we heard in the Budget that £60 million would go to them and other failing schools projects. When the Financial Secretary responds to the debate, will he explain what the legal status of city academies will be, given that they will be outwith the control of local authorities?
I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to applaud the work done by Surrey county council in bringing in the company 3Es to take over the failing Kings Manor school in Guildford. I hope that the Government will also take the opportunity to condemn the actions of the National Union of Teachers in Surrey, which is trying to prevent 3Es from exercising the freedom that it believes it needs on staffing in the school so that it can turn the school from a failing one into one that provides the right quality of education for all children.

1137
Diversity and excellence in education is an issue with which we are particularly concerned. However, it is interesting to note some of the comments that have recently been made about it. The following statements were made:
My vision is one of excellence and diversity, a vision of transformation … there are a number of key principles behind such transformation including … increased diversity of provision … schools will be built and managed by partnerships involving … voluntary, church and business sponsors.
An alternative statement is:
We believe that a commitment to … genuine diversity is fundamental to achieving excellence in education … Partner schools … will be set up by the private sector or voluntary groups or charities.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might not think that there is very much difference between the statements. However, the second statement on diversity is a direct quotation from the Conservative party's document on "The Common Sense Revolution in education", which we announced last November and which is about partner schools. The first set of statements is more recent. Again, I welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to diversity in education—this time in his proposals for city academies.
Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the hon. Lady can recall the name of the document on which the 1995 Labour party conference voted, which caused so much controversy and dealt both with selection and grant-maintained status. The name of the document was, of course, "Diversity and Excellence in Schools".
Mrs. May: Given the policies that this Government introduced on taking office, that document sounds as much of a joke as the Secretary of State claims the comments he made at that conference were. The Government have ceaselessly tried to remove diversity from education, in attacks on grammar and grant-maintained schools. In so many ways, they have cut parental choice and removed diversity.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is now willing and happy to adopt the Conservative party's partner schools proposal—except, as in everything, he wants to restrict that good idea to a few schools and to prevent it from being open to all. I ask him to consider that issue. We should be increasing diversity and excellence in education for all children in every part of the country, not targeting certain ideas merely on particular areas—notably, from the sound of those set out by the Secretary of State today, Labour local authorities.
I shall deal now with the issue of failing schools and the announcement of £60 million for the fresh start programme and city academies. The Secretary of State made several comments on the exclusion policy in failing schools. I want to address that serious matter because it relates to the quality of education received by both the child who is at risk of exclusion or has been excluded, and others in a classroom where a child has not been excluded and continues to disrupt learning.
Those who are dealing with failing schools and difficult schools in inner cities consistently refer to the problem of being unable to exercise the discipline policy that they want and to the fact that that inability to exclude pupils restricts their ability to improve education and turn the schools around. It is right to provide children who are
1138
excluded with an appropriate education; they should not be left on one side, because their life chances depend on their receiving an appropriate education. However, keeping those children on site, either in the classroom or in the learning support unit, is not always the answer for either the child concerned or others.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. May: I shall in a moment.
Not only teachers but pupils to whom I talked the other day in a secondary school in Kettering said that they were concerned because disruptive pupils were being kept in the classroom as a result of the head teacher's inability to exercise the complete freedom to exclude. Head teachers should have freedom to exercise the discipline policy—including exclusion—that they believe is right for their schools, the pupil concerned and others in the classroom.
Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. May: I shall finish this point then give way first to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).
No pupil's learning should be disrupted because the Government have forced on a school a target of reducing exclusions, thus tying its hands and reducing its ability to exclude and exercise the discipline policy that it wants.
Mr. Gardiner: Does the hon. Lady accept that in the last three years of the Conservative Administration, exclusions in schools rose from 3,000 to 12,000 a year? Will she join me in congratulating local education authorities such as Brent, which, through its work in targeting excluded pupils, has seen that figure drop by half?
Mrs. May: There is good work in many areas in targeting pupils who are at risk of exclusion, ensuring that they are not excluded. There is a care centre in Birmingham, for example. However, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that pupils should be kept in the classroom regardless of their impact on themselves or others, that is wrong. Heads should have the ability to exclude where that is right for the pupil concerned and for the rest of the children in the classroom.
Mr. Willis: I apologise to the hon. Lady and the Secretary of State for arriving a little late. One of the issues that affects her policy is what we do with those youngsters in free schools. If all 24,000 heads are able to exclude students whom they think are disruptive, what will happen to those students, and how do we get them into another free school?
Mrs. May: It is necessary to ensure that education is provided for those pupils who are excluded, but it might be appropriate for them to be educated not in a formal school environment but in a centre that will meet their particular needs. That is why it is important to consider the interests of the child concerned as well as those of all the children in the school, and not simply to say that there should be a target—which the Government are so keen on—to reduce exclusions and that schools should be financially penalised if exclusions are not reduced as the Government want them to be.

1139
I noted this morning that the Secretary of State is willing to take responsibility when he thinks that schools are doing well, but not when his failing schools programme is failing, as demonstrated by the resignation of three of his 10 superheads in the fresh start initiative. Failing schools are faced with a confusing myriad of initiatives, including education action zones, excellence in cities, mini-EAZs, city academies, fresh start and superheads.
Schools and heads are subject to initiative after initiative. Sadly, they continue to be unable to meet the children's needs because of too much interference from the Government. They are unable to get on with the job that they want to do, which is to ensure that they are providing the education that is right for the children in their classrooms.
It was interesting that, last week, head teachers of the 36 most improved schools in England warned that the Government's educational reforms
are in danger of being submerged under red tape.
Time and again, schools complain about the bureaucracy and red tape surrounding all the Government's initiatives and say that they cannot get on with the job of improving education in the classroom because of the imposition of initiatives and too much prescription and interference by the Government.
We want schools to be free to do what they believe is right for children. The Government should set schools free, get the budgets to schools and enable heads to decide how to spend them. They should start trusting the teaching profession again, let teachers get on with teaching and increase parental choice. By doing that, we shall ensure that all children are able to achieve their full potential.
2.8 pm
Mr. Ian Pearson: Any Budget in the modern era needs to be judged not just on domestic terms but on how it positions Britain in the international economy. Everywhere in the world countries are changing their economic and fiscal policies to meet the challenges of the new millennium. The trend is towards lower business and individual tax rates, and lower debt through tight control and efficient public spending.
In the United States, business and individual taxes are low. The Clinton budget in January forecast the elimination of the national debt by 2013. Germany is slashing its federal business taxes and has started to reduce the top rates of income tax. France, Italy and Holland are all, to varying degrees, adopting similar policies. The accession countries in Europe are following a similar strategy for tight control of public spending and debt, and low business taxes. Even newly developing countries such as Brazil have embraced the golden rule, pledging to borrow only to invest and to balance the books over the economic cycle.
Nations around the globe are embracing the new economy. They recognise that e-commerce and the internet will revolutionise trade between nation states and completely change the way in which we do business in every country. The Lisbon summit is discussing that as we speak. It is clear that, although we cannot make a future for ourselves taking in each other's e-washing—we
1140
still need to make and distribute things—the e-commerce revolution will transform businesses and economies over the next decade.
The trend across Europe is leading to a change in the European social model. The European social model is breaking up. It is all very well for some Opposition Members to grumble darkly about the creation of a European federal superstate, but that is not what the future holds. The future is about establishing competitive conditions across Europe, opening markets and ensuring that there is fair tax competition. It will then be for nation states to compete like fury, beneath a Europewide set of rules and trading arrangements. Securing national competitive advantage is the name of the economic policy game.
Mr. Blunt: If things do not turn out as promised by the hon. Gentleman, will he join the effort to establish a body of opinion to support us Conservatives in the quest for a future such as the one he has portrayed?
Mr. Pearson: I do not know how things will turn out, but I do know that the Opposition parties need a great deal of help, and they will not get it from me.
How is Britain doing, and how will Budget 2000 affect our economic performance? We have the highest employment rate in our history: 800,000 more people are now in work than at the time of the last general election. We have high growth rates: the Budget projects rates of between 2.75 and 3.25 per cent. in the new financial year. We have a smaller debt burden than any other advanced industrial nation—smaller than that of the United States, although it plans to exceed us in that respect. We have made Britain an attractive environment, in which businesses want to work and people want to enjoy their lives. In recent times, two thirds of inward investment in Europe has been in Britain.
Budget 2000 maintains our competitive position and, by ensuring a strong economy, allows the Government to proceed with our fairness agenda while maintaining a budget surplus—£14 billion in the new financial year, and £16 billion and £13 billion in the following two years. That is testimony to the importance of running a sound macro-economic system, imposing low business tax rates, and operating a policy that encourages and rewards enterprise.
I welcome the massive boost to the health budget, as do people throughout the west midlands. It is now imperative for a grown-up debate to take place about how the wall of cash that will hit the NHS over the next four years can be spent as wisely and efficiently as possible. The Prime Minister launched that debate yesterday; I fear that the Leader of the Opposition did not want to join in, but I hope that more sensible Conservative Members will play a constructive part in the discussion of how we can strip the NHS of some of its bureaucracy and provide the service that will be needed in the 21st century.
The boost to the education budget will have a big impact in my constituency. I calculate that more than £450,000 extra will go to schools in my constituency alone, while well over £1 million will go to Dudley metropolitan borough council's schools. That is part of the policy of transforming education in this nation. I firmly support the strategy announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I strongly suspect that more good

1141
news will come as a result of the comprehensive spending review, and that "education, education, education" will remain a priority of Labour Governments.
Significant announcements were made about taxation of charities. Philanthropy is all too often forgotten in Britain. Historically, we have quite a low giving rate, and I think those announcements herald a major step forward. The challenge is now to the charities sector: to embrace the changes and to market itself aggressively in order to reap the full benefits of the Chancellor's largesse.
The Budget also challenges some of the entrepreneurs who have made a lot of money in the new economy to pull their weight, and to use the available tax breaks to invest more and give something back to the community that brought them up and allowed them to prosper.
Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend think that the Budget will lead to what he and I have campaigned for—a greater propensity to donate money for university research, as happens in America? Does he think that it will bring us nearer to establishing the genuine partnership that exists in the United States between philanthropy and investment?
Mr. Pearson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Donation rates among alumni in the United States are dramatically higher than those in Britain. The Budget changes will make it far easier for individuals to give to universities, and for businesses to donate assets to both universities and charities. I hope that, over the next 10 years, a far greater proportion of universities' income will be raised from donations from alumni and businesses.
Like every other Labour Member-I suspect that our view is widely shared—I welcome the increase in the pensioners' winter fuel allowance to £150, and the increase in the minimum income guarantee in line with average earnings. Pensioners will also welcome the fact that the price of petrol is to rise by only 2p a litre. They drive cars too, and those who must live on low incomes still need to get out and about. I think, however, that the Government might have been more generous in one respect. The Chancellor referred to the needs of those who are just above minimum income levels and who have to pay the full whack regardless of any benefit entitlement.
I still believe that what pensioners really want is an increase in the basic state pension. It would cost an incredible amount—some £18 billion—to restore the earnings link, and no sensible Government could advocate it. However, as part of their review, the Government should consider on a year-by-year basis whether the economy can afford to increase the state pension in line with earnings.
We should not forget pensioners when we talk about the new economy. The rate of internet take-up by pensioners is low, but new facilities such as internet shopping could be of great benefit, particularly as some of our nation's pensioners become increasingly housebound. I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider in due course the introduction of a scheme whereby pensioners could receive free internet training.
There is much to be welcomed in the Budget's enterprise package and the proposed changes in respect of the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts are sensible. They will be widely welcomed by industry, as will making the 40 per cent. capital
1142
allowances regime permanent, reducing the capital gains tax taper from 10 years to four and increasing the range of business assets that qualify. We should not underestimate the significance of those changes and their likely impact. I shall discuss that in a moment.
I also welcome the all-employee share ownership scheme. I did one of the roadshows to promote it in Birmingham recently. Companies clearly want to be seen to be fair to all their employees and recognise the link between employee share ownership and economic performance. I am particularly glad that the Government have decided to continue with the save-as-you-earn share-save scheme, which is very effective. There is no reason to discard it.
The decision to have 100 per cent. capital allowances for buying information technology equipment is novel. It shows that the Government's thinking is going in the right direction—they want to encourage all companies, regardless of the sector in which they operate, to embrace the knowledge economy. However, as I have said before, leasing rather than purchasing IT equipment is often a far more effective option for many companies. Some IT systems become obsolete quickly, which means that it is dangerous to buy assets as they soon end up on the scrap heap. We ought to consider ways of introducing leasing arrangements to the capital allowances regime, which would pass the benefits of leasing on to companies.
I also welcome the enterprise management incentive scheme. Since the pre-Budget report, it has been modified to take account of industry' s needs and now offers decent incentives for small businesses that want to attract and retain high-quality, high-calibre senior employees.
I urge the Government to do more for our manufacturing industry, particularly companies that export. Interestingly, the Confederation of British Industry made little reference to manufacturing industry in its pre-Budget submission. It did not want a package for manufacturing, but called for other measures. No initiatives came from it that would help our hard-hit exporters. At least the Government are doing something and have announced the introduction of regional venture capital funds across the nation.
As someone with a background in regional venture capital, I believe that venture capital is important and that we must maintain our lead in Europe in terms of having a thriving industry. However, I feel that we are missing the point. We are planning to allocate about £100 million to the west midlands region and similar sums to Yorkshire and other regions, although amounts vary, but there is already a properly functioning venture capital market in place. Recently, Greater London Enterprise and West Midlands Enterprise, an organisation for which I used to work, announced a £60 million venture capital fund and this week South Yorkshire Investment Partners announced a £110 million fund. They and the Government's regional venture capital plans are targeted on similar areas.
We are missing the gap, which exists in two respects. First, there is a shortage of decent propositions to back and of proposals from universities that are prepared to work on technology that can be dragged out and exploited by other companies. Secondly, we must do something about companies that will never have spectacular venture capital internal rates of return of 20 per cent. or more, but offer solid growth prospects, even though they may have

1143
strained balance sheets and need long-term loan finance. The Government could do more to help businesses if they addressed those issues.
I have three proposals on manufacturing. The CBI has not come up with any, but let me try mine. To be fair, the CBI regards infrastructure as very significant. The previous Government did not pay enough attention to infrastructure and I am worried about whether this Government are paying sufficient attention to its important contribution to Britain's economic performance. I am pleased by the announcement that the Manchester metro extension is to go ahead and I should like the metro be developed in the west midlands, too. Investment in our transport infrastructure has a substantial knock-on economic development benefit for our industries. Let us consider the benefit of building the black country spine road. Industries clustered around it and upgraded their capabilities. We now have profitable companies with modern production facilities that moved from inefficient plant lay-outs to convenient sites. We need to do more for infrastructure, although £280 million is a great start, and I hope that the comprehensive spending review will go substantially further.
We could also help exporters by strengthening the budget and operations of British Trade International so that it can offer packages to help companies to access even more new markets and provide additional assistance with getting projects under way. The Government should consider that, as well as giving more support to regional development agencies and boosting the regional selective assistance budget, which should be targeted on manufacturing industries and companies that export.
I want briefly to discuss the situation at Rover-BMW and Longbridge, which relates directly to those matters. The workers at Longbridge have obviously been badly betrayed by BMW. They are not to blame for the situation. The Government negotiated in good faith with BMW and put a package together. They are not to blame for the situation. Following BMW's announcement, the Government acted extremely quickly. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for taking the time and trouble to go to Longbridge to talk to the workers, the trade unions and management. BMW did not extend that courtesy to its work force when it made the announcement. Today, my right hon. Friend is showing his active support for Longbridge's future by having conversations with Joachim Milberg in Germany.
We have established a taskforce, but there is an urgent need for clarity on how the £129 million that has already been allocated will flow. There must be no strings attached to that money. It needs to be able to be spent wherever in the region it is most needed after the decision on Rover Cars. The automotive components supply base will suffer along with Longbridge following the likely loss of jobs there. About 40,000 jobs are at risk in the supply base. We need to ensure that as many of those jobs are safeguarded as possible.
It would be wrong to talk of wage subsidies. Teams of accountants need to look at our supplier companies. Bodies will quickly start to appear on the battlefield. The teams need to take a long hard look at those companies that have a future: those that can, with a bit of bandaging—perhaps long-term loan support—get over cash-flow problems. We need to provide a sensitive,
1144
sensible package of financial support, as well as high-quality outplacement support to those workers who will probably not be required in future. The £129 million that has been announced so far should be regarded only as a starter for 10. More cash will be needed if we are to stop the crisis turning into a disaster.
People who live and work in Dudley borough have benefited from the Budget. Every school in my constituency and all the hospitals in the borough will benefit substantially this year and over coming years as a result of the Labour Government. It is a far-sighted Budget, fit to start the new millennium. I congratulate the Chancellor on his achievement.
2.32 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: I should like to return to the theme of education, but I compliment the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson). It is always a pleasure to listen to him in the House, particularly on the problems that he has experienced in his constituency.
In last year's debate, when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) stood up to speak on behalf of the Conservatives, the Secretary of State's dog was sick. I suspect that, if Lucy had been in the Chamber this afternoon when the present incumbent, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), was speaking, she would have jumped across the Table and bitten her leg. Fortunately, she was not here.
I am reminded of Tory policy during their 18 years in government. It was about diversity and excellence: basically, it diverted the poor from excellent schools. The Secretary of State and I disagree on a number of things, but we agree on that fundamental issue: we must no longer have a two-tier education system, where the wealthy and middle-classes have quality schools and the poor are condemned to second-rate schools.
Therefore, it would be disingenuous of the Liberal Democrats not to acknowledge that the additional resources allocated by the Chancellor for our schools are welcome. As a party, we have constantly harried the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for more resources for schools. We thank them for doing something about that.
Heads and governors will undoubtedly feel relief that the perpetual round of cuts that they have experienced in the past decade will, at least this year, not happen. However, it is ironic that schools will have already made cuts for next year. They will already have set budgets, taken staffing decisions and, in many cases, handed out redundancy notices. They will have planned accommodation needs. Admissions will have been agreed and appeals heard. We may be ending boom and bust elsewhere, but such a statement would clearly be premature in education. However, we welcome the resources.
The move to extend education maintenance allowances to other areas of England and Wales is positive. I congratulate the Chancellor and the Secretary of State on doing that. I know from personal experience just how difficult it is to persuade young people to remain in full-time education. The idea of putting resources in place to encourage a seamless progression is worth while.
When he taps into the billions in the comprehensive spending review, will the Secretary of State consider the position of disadvantaged young people in rural areas?

1145
Often, they do not appear in great numbers, but they have equally severe problems. Travelling to a place of education post-16 becomes a big obstacle for many poor families. I hope that the Government will look at that issue.
We welcome the money for booster classes. Again, we support the idea that youngsters who are failing and who can receive additional support should be able to benefit from that at no additional cost to the school, but we find it difficult to understand why heads cannot make the decision about who should be boosted. In schools that I visit—I am sure that it applies to other hon. Members—sometimes, the real priority is not the children whom the Secretary of State wants to get to level 4 to meet his target and to save his job, because that is what he promised, but children at the other end of the extreme, who are finding it incredibly difficult to access even level 2. It is important for them to have booster support.
We support the announcement about the extension of the excellence in cities scheme, particularly the move to extend it to primary schools. There was always a lack of logic in running the scheme in secondary schools and not recognising that those are incredibly dependent on quality product from primary schools.
I worked in the east of Leeds. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), was kind enough to visit the area when it was looking at the family of schools initiative. That is bearing significant fruit. One of those schools is regarded as one of the most improved schools in the country this year. That is a great credit to all concerned.
At last, there is a clear admission in the Budget statement that the Government have misled schools about spending. For the past two years, we have been bombarded by Department for Education and Employment press releases announcing and re-announcing the £19 billion of "funny money" to put education, education, education into practice. I quote:
This is an historic day for education and the country. The Government is providing an additional £19 billion for education over the three years from 1999/00 to 2001/2002. This is the fulfilment of our pledge that education would be our number one priority and that we would increase the share of national income spent on education.
Those were the Secretary of State's words on 14 July 1998. It was an historic day—the Government lost their halo and began telling lies to our teachers, governors, parents and children about spending on education. The lie was that £19 billion was additional money, real money, when it was no more than funny money, a series of manoeuvres to count, double-count and treble-count, to announce and re-announce and to disguise the fact that the only way in which education spending targets could be met was if much-maligned local authorities increased council tax by, on average, three times the rate of inflation. That is how the real money got into schools. The lie was that a Labour Government—I quote from the Labour manifesto:
will increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure.
Mr. Blunkett: It is a good phrase.
Mr. Willis: It is. I wish that the Government had meant it, but it was not true. Even after the comprehensive
1146
spending review and the Budget, Labour's spending on education over the lifetime of the Parliament will be 4.6 per cent. of GDP. I have the Library note stating that, if the Government go until 2002, in that final year, they will achieve 5 per cent. However, over the lifetime of this Parliament, the average will be 4.6 per cent.
The previous Government, under the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), achieved an average of 4.9 per cent. We are therefore seeing a real-terms reduction of the percentage of GDP spent on our schools.
We must always welcome a repentant sinner. This week, there was no mention by the Chancellor of the £19 billion figure—it was absent from his statement—and neither was it mentioned today by the Secretary of State. At last, some transparency and an admission that this really is new money! On 21 March, a Treasury official told The Daily Telegraph that
This is new money. You haven't seen it before and there's no double counting.
Clearly, he has heeded the advice in Nick Davies's recent article in The Guardian. [Interruption.] It is marvellous that the Secretary of State can laugh at what has become a national scandal.
One group of people who will not see that money are those in local education authorities. This morning, on the "Today" programme, the Secretary of State made it clear—I have now looked at the transcript, and I thank him for pointing me in that direction—that he wants that money to bypass LEAs and to go to schools. In their announcement, the Government have taken a giant step towards a nationally funded education system, and perhaps heralded the end of local democratic involvement in our state education system.
Understandably, there will be those—such as Conservative Members—who will rejoice at a direct funding formula, although certainly many head teachers would protest at yet more interference by Government in the curriculum, teaching, assessment and targeting. As a former head, I tell the Secretary of State that I can see the attraction of a centrally funded system, but I know that there are also significant and inherent dangers.
The dangers were certainly flagged up by the hon. Member for Maidenhead. Can hon. Members imagine there being 24,000 free schools in the United Kingdom, each with its own admission authority? That is what we are talking about. The huge mountain of bureaucracy that would be needed to manage such a system is incomprehensible. However, there would be no system to provide special educational needs support or some of the other specialist services that our LEAs provide. Clearly, the good schools—the schools that take the middle class youngsters who have or can afford those types of support—will not need such a system at all.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the dangers that he sees in the direct payments to schools that the Secretary of State has started outweigh the benefits, which the hon. Gentleman embraced earlier, of teachers seeing the money in schools, or is he seriously suggesting that the money that the Secretary of State is giving in a direct payment should be top-sliced to the LEAs? Perhaps he would now come off the fence.
Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Despite the perhaps flippant way in which he

1147
has raised the issue, it is an incredibly serious issue. It is not an either/or matter. It is not a matter of simply saying either that the Secretary of State can fund all schools directly from the centre, or that all money should be provided via LEAs. I shall develop that point later. If I do not fully answer the hon. Gentleman's question, perhaps he will intervene again.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the system of standard spending assessment is as confusing as it is irrational. It is said that only two people at the Department for Education and Employment have ever understood the SSA system—one of them is now dead, and the other works the computer, which is broken. No one could justify the £683 per secondary school pupil gap between Brent and Islington, which are both deprived boroughs, or the £1,306 more that a primary school child in Kensington and Chelsea receives compared with a primary school pupil in Stockport. There is no sense to that.
The report of the senior chief inspector of schools for 1998–99 examined 115 schools with similar proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals and similar proportions of pupils with statements of special educational needs. It found a funding difference per pupil ranging from £1,801 to £3,600. That is not only unacceptable, but grossly unfair. The system is archaic and arcane, and it fails the Government's own test, in the preamble to "Fair Funding", which specifies the criteria of "equity, accountability and transparency".
The Government have confused the system yet further. They have increasingly directed spending through the standards fund, which will have grown from £4 million, in 1983, to a staggering £1.475 billion, in 2001–02. Given that the teachers' threshold payments and the Chancellor's announcements are also to be directed centrally, the Secretary of State now controls £4 billion of schools' expenditure. Add that to the £6 billion that he will control with the learning and skills council from next year, and one begins to see how centralist and powerful this Secretary of State has become. If the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) does not want to see so much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, no matter how benign, he needs to re-examine the Conservative party's policy.
Understandably, ring-fenced resources to education action zones, specialist schools, city technology colleges, fresh start and city academies, plus a culture of perpetual bidding that leaves one in three schools disappointed, have resulted in heads and governors saying, "Enough is enough. Give us the money centrally."
What we need to do is to reform the SSA system. However, we need a reform that will strike a balance between local and national responsibilities. We need transparency, and we need efficient distribution. However, we must be able to respond to local need. An education system controlled by a Government of any political persuasion is a dangerous concept. I put it in the same line as a national police force controlled by a Government of any political persuasion.
The growth of our education system has been a response to diversity and to local needs. Our schools movement originated back in the 19th century, in national schools, the Church of England and the British and Foreign Schools Society and the non-conformists.
1148
The movement originated in villages and in schools, as a response to need. Our education system has been built on that basis ever since. Our system is not perfect, but it certainly does not deserve to be thrown away in its entirety.
The distribution of £512 million in this Budget will bring smiles to the faces of many head teachers and governors in my constituency. However, they should beware of Secretaries of State bearing gifts, because there is usually some pain to follow.
We should like to know—partly given the question asked by the hon. Member for Maidenhead—what will happen, next year, to the £512 million that has bypassed LEAs. The Red Book deals with that matter. The Secretary of State indicated that the money would be included in SSAs—although the Red Book does not say that. Will it be part and parcel of a central pot from which the Secretary of State will directly reward schools? How will it be incorporated in future? If the £512 million is to be only one-off funding, in the following year, schools will be plunged into chaos if they have to try to make up a deficit of £40,000 in large secondary schools or £3,000 to £5,000 in small primary schools. The Liberal Democrats will participate fully in any review of resource distribution to schools, but we oppose root and branch a back-door nationalisation of our education system by this or any other Secretary of State.
The most significant part of the Chancellor's speech was that revealing that education is no longer the Government's No. 1 priority. Tax cuts are their No. 1 priority; £1 billion for education compared with £2.6 billion to cut income tax tells its own story of the Government's priorities. The Government, like all their predecessors, know how to sell out their remaining principles when a general election is coming.
What about the rest of the education system? Are all the problems resolved? Why are tax cuts preferable to providing a quality early-years education place for all three-year-olds? I expected the Secretary of State to announce that this afternoon, but there was not a word about it. In all the rural areas of Britain less than 10 per cent. of our three-year-olds have a paid place in early-years education. Outside the cities, thousands and thousands of playgroups have been closing during this Parliament as a direct result of that lack of provision. A total of £390 million would have meant an early-year's education place for every three-year-old. Is that not preferable to a tax cut?
Why are tax cuts preferable to seeing more teaching assistant support in our primary schools? Our primary schools are overburdened. They are desperately seeking some relief from bureaucracy and need to find an opportunity to plan effectively for the youngsters in their charge. Why are tax cuts preferable to building into school budgets some time for primary school teachers to prepare properly?
Why is there nothing in the Budget to remove the inequities of charging English and Welsh students tuition fees when the Government know that the system is having an adverse effect on student recruitment? As the hon. Member for Maidenhead made clear in her contribution, the real-terms numbers are starting to fall in not just further education but higher education, too. The latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions

1149
Service show that overall applications are down this year by 1.8 per cent., with the figure for mature students down, for the fourth year running, by over 5.7 per cent.
We find student poverty not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. A total of 18 per cent. of higher education students now drop out and the majority cite a lack of finance as their principal reason for doing so. The cost of that to our system is about £350 million. That money is utterly wasted and we would rather see it spent on the students.
As a party, we stand firmly behind the Government's aims for the expansion of FE and HE, as, I believe, does the Conservative party. To be fair, one of the Conservative party's proudest achievements over the past 20 years has been the expansion of student numbers at both FE and HE level. We also support the Government's view that that expansion should give greater access to those from poorer homes and that we should end social exclusion in the FE and HE sectors.
We accept the Prime Minister's argument that Britain must develop its human capital more effectively in order to compete on the world market. However, that expansion must be based on offering students a quality experience, and that is not what many of them are getting today. Since Labour took office, the funding per full-time equivalent student in FE has fallen by 7 per cent., from £3,050 in 1997–98 to £2,840 next year. In higher education, the full-time equivalent funding has fallen by 3 per cent. in real terms. That is in total contradiction to what the Minister told us at Education and Employment questions earlier today. That drop means a drop in the quality of the product that we can offer in our universities and colleges.
The Minister's noble Friend, Baroness Blackstone, admitted in a written answer in the other place on 27 January that the previous Government spent 1.29 per cent. of GDP on higher education, but this Government will spend only 1.14 per cent. To match the Tories' level of spending, the Government would need to spend an additional £5.9 billion, but they say that tax cuts come before investment in education.
Mr. Tim Boswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and I agree with many of them. Will he note that the figures given in the written answer in the other place included the science budget? We secured some further corrected figures, excluding the science budget which, if anything, made the disparity with the performance of the previous Conservative Government and the adverse trend today appear even more stark.
Mr. Willis: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is right. The £500 million that the Wellcome Trust poured into research is double-counted by the Government as money that they have given to research. I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out.
Perhaps, as in 1997, the Secretary of State has another plan for higher education after the next general election. Will the Minister confirm that he has already agreed in principle with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Russell group of universities that, after the next election, the Russell group will be able to charge differential fees to students? If that is not the case, I invite the Minister, who is responsible for this matter, to intervene and say so. Since he is not doing that,
1150
the answer speaks for itself. That is the reality. After the next election, the Labour party's solution to the underfunding in education—it was hinted at by the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson)—is that there should be an ivy league, as there is in America. Charter schools will be imported as academies and we will have an ivy league where students are charged differential fees. I am sorry if that is to be the system used to support access from poorer homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks)rose
Mr. Willis: I am delighted to see that the Minister intends to intervene.
Mr. Wicks: I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful speech, but he is overdoing it a bit now. The Secretary of State has made it clear that we are opposed to top-up fees. We will support no policies that make it difficult for poorer students or students from middle-income families to gain access to our best universities. Our approach is based on fairness and equality. I want to make that absolutely clear.
Mr. Willis: I have no difficulty accepting that assurance from the Minister. I have some real difficulty accepting that that is the view of Her Majesty's Government. Top-up and differential fees are different in terms of semantics and, in reality, the Government are all about semantics. They say one thing to one audience and change a word or two for another. The Minister has not denied that the Government are holding unofficial talks with the CVCP and the Russell group about differential fees. Those talks are going on. If I am wrong, I hope that there will be a clear statement to that effect. That would be a betrayal of many of the principles about which many of us are thinking.
If the hon. Member for Dudley, South is right and we are to be a more generous society with huge levels of bursaries for our universities, good luck to him. However, the giving culture in the United States and the tax system that underpins it is totally different from the culture in Britain and the tax system that underpins it here. Each of the two education systems has approached its position from different directions. I am not saying that one is better than the other, but I would like to think that the British higher education system is more egalitarian than that of the United States.
My party's biggest disappointment with the Budget for education is that it fails to invest in the future of our education system—our teachers. The ICM poll in February this year told its own tale. Even with the promise of more pay, one third of our teachers under the age of 35 said that they wanted to leave teaching within the next 10 years and 50 per cent. wanted to leave within the next 15 years. In only 9 per cent. of cases did those teachers cite pay as the prime reason for leaving the profession.
It is surprising, therefore, that there is nothing in the Budget to assist with teacher recruitment and retention, despite the worrying trend. Figures produced last week show that applications for secondary postgraduate courses in education are down by a staggering 21 per cent. on this time last year. Applications for maths, science and modern

1151
languages are now below 1998 levels and, even with the introduction of golden hellos, maths recruitment is 23 per cent. below the Government's target with science not far behind at 19 per cent.
We need an increased supply of quality entrants to teaching. Do the Government believe that the standards agenda can deliver improvements with such appalling statistics? Our schools are starting to experience the same fate as our hospitals, which have an acute shortage of nurses, doctors and specialists, yet the Government have no clearly defined recruitment strategy. Department for Education and Employment bursaries were withdrawn during the recession. They were replaced by the Teacher Training Agency's schemes, now augmented by the golden hellos, but those are not strategies to make teaching the attractive career that it should be in a new knowledge-based economy.
A year before the end of new Labour's first term in office, the Government have delivered cuts in higher education, cuts in further education and cuts in teacher recruitment. They have told teachers what to teach, how to teach and when to teach. They have removed from head teachers the ability to prioritise and sought to manage our schools with centralised targeting. The Budget is a little, too late.
3.1 pm
Ms Linda Perham: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate on the Budget resolutions on education and employment. I shall start with education, because that is where we all start on the path to learning for life. I welcome the extra £1 billion in the Budget for education. It is wonderful news that an average primary school will get £6,000 extra for more teachers and books and the average secondary school will get £40,000 more.
I have been a school governor for 15 years and for eight years I have chaired the board of the large local primary school that my children attended. It will be eligible for £9,000. I know how much hard-working, dedicated head teachers in my constituency and throughout the country will welcome that cash boost going directly to them, particularly as at the recent budget meeting of my local council, the London borough of Redbridge, Labour's plans to spend more than £11 million on education—the highest figure proposed by the three parties represented on the council—were outvoted by the blue and yellow alliance of right-wing Conservatives and fickle Liberals. The Liberal-Tory coalition has also turned down Labour's proposal for a school safety officer to promote safer travel to schools, yet it has still managed to hike up the council tax, with a staggering increase of almost 20 per cent. in two years.
Another welcome boost to education is the £10 million enhancement for education business links from April 2000, as announced in the 1999 pre-Budget report, to encourage young people to consider careers in business. The money will improve existing infrastructures, enhance teachers' professional development and improve the quality of work experience, as well as helping to double the scale of enterprise programmes with a proven track record of success, such as young enterprise. I have been involved for two years as a judge in the running of the Redbridge business education partnership young
1152
enterprise competition. I have been impressed with the standard of entries and the understanding that young people in my borough's schools have of the culture of entrepreneurship and enterprise.
As well as acknowledging the Government's efforts on business education partnerships, I welcome the measures in the Budget to build stronger businesses and promote entrepreneurship and productivity, with the reductions in capital gains tax rates, the extension of the 40 per cent. first year capital allowance for small and medium-sized enterprises, regional venture capital funds to give a £250 million boost for investment in London alone and the £50 million e-commerce package to get more small firms online. I am sure that some of the young entrepreneurs whose work I admired in Redbridge will soon be taking advantage of those far-sighted opportunities provided by the Government. From my work on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, particularly our visits last year to the United States and Sweden, I know how vital it is for British companies, especially smaller and micro companies, to engage with the knowledge economy.
Two weeks ago I spoke to business people in the South Woodford area of my constituency. I am sure that they will welcome the incentives, as well as the £285 million to fight crime, including £100 million to recruit and retain police officers. They and many other local people are concerned about the battle against street crime, shoplifting and burglary.
There are many retailers, local shopping centres and parades in my constituency. They provide an excellent service to the public and convenient employment for local people, but there are still more than 1,400 unemployed people in the constituency. I am particularly encouraged by the extension of the new deal to people beyond the 18 to 24 age group and the enhancement of the gateway provision, with more intensive contact with new deal personal advisers, greater access to support services and improved job search facilities. For those not finding unsubsidised work, there will be flexible access to a period of subsidised employment, support for self-employment, work-based training or a programme to improve key skills or enhance employment prospects, including work trials or work with the voluntary sector.
I am the secretary of the all-party group on ageing and older people and I campaign with a group called Equal Rights on Age. A great deal of my work in Parliament is focused on fighting for the rights of older people, so I reserve my loudest plaudits for the new deal 50-plus, which started in nine pathfinders in October 1999 and rolls out nationally in a few weeks, in April 2000. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew attention to that in his opening statement. There will be personal advice, help with job searching and an employment credit of £60 for full-time or self-employment and £40 for part-time employment for a year, as well as training support to address the dramatic fall in the employment rate of men over 50 in the past 20 years and the fact that women over 50 have generally not enjoyed the opportunities available to younger women to increase their participation in the labour market.
The Government have been a trailblazer in tackling unemployment among the over-50s by pioneering an

1153
innovative programme targeted at older jobseekers and aimed at reversing the declining pattern of employment in that age group:
Since coming to power, the Government has put in place an array of initiatives on almost all aspects of economic, social and educational affairs. The scale and energy of this is almost without parallel in modem government.
Those are not my words, but those of the Third Age Employment Network in January 2000. I endorse them. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his stirring conference speech, when it comes to getting the country back to work and improving things for all our people, "We've only just begun."
3.8 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: I cannot follow the content or sentiments of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham), but I pay tribute to her for giving a lead to the House and the country on world book day, which was a most welcome initiative. It was a pleasure to be involved with her local libraries. I hope that she repeats that idea.
I should like to talk more about the business aspects of the Budget than about education, although the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has tempted me. I shall come back to the issue that he mentioned. I declare the business interests recorded in the register.
The Budget is not old Labour—it talks a lot of e-commerce and entrepreneurship—and neither is it wholly new Labour, because it has a strong redistributionist flavour in the detail of the working families tax credit and other issues. However, it is certainly real Labour, because it will mean more tax on business and entrepreneurship. It is also real Labour in that the Government can no longer shelter behind the spending programmes that they inherited or take credit for the supply side reforms that we left them. They are striking out on their own.
One striking characteristic of the Budget is that it contains the remedies for a number of mistakes that the Government had already made. The welcome changes on capital gains tax were reforms to the Chancellor's own reforms. It is his mess over the taper and retirement relief that, to some extent, his new proposals clean up. As for vehicle excise duty, he has listened and learned, but it is probably too late for those road hauliers in Kent who have been put out of business by his earlier escalation of the duty on diesel and vehicle excise duty. At least that lesson has been learned.
We are promised an army of Excise officers throughout Kent to chase bootlegged alcohol and tobacco. It might have been easier to tackle the problem at its source and to have done more with the duty itself. At least the right hon. Gentleman has understood the damage that his original mistakes were causing.
The Chancellor has accepted what we told him all along: his replacement of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings allowances by individual saving accounts—a less generous scheme—was bound to lead to lower take-up. That is why he is revising his scheme and holding out the promise of a higher allowance for the first year.
If the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged and partially corrected those mistakes, there are others that lie uncorrected. On stamp duty, he still fails to make any
1154
distinction between that which is levied on domestic houses and that on commercial property and businesses. The stamp duty that business pays is an increasing burden on business transactions. He still fails to reverse the mean-minded cut in dividend tax credit on pensioners. I thought that the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) might have touched on that. He has been eloquent on the subject previously, but now that the cut has gone ahead, presumably he thinks that it is too late to comment further. I do not think that it is. It was a mean-minded cut that affected those who had saved throughout their lives. It unnecessarily took from them sums ranging from £70 to £700 a year.
The Chancellor has not yet listened sufficiently to industry and business on the climate change levy. There are still serious concerns. There are serious concerns also, which have emerged over the past couple of days, about the taxation of controlled foreign companies. I know that the Minister will want to respond to these concerns as swiftly as possible when he replies. It is alleged by these companies' advisers that the Chancellor has made a serious mistake in his initial proposals. Whether he or the companies concerned are right, the House should be told as quickly as possible.
I move on to the economy. The stability and low inflation that we set in train continue. We can argue about the extent to which that was the legacy that the Conservative Government bequeathed, or whether by transferring responsibility for monetary policy to the Bank, the Government have managed to lock it in. I remain suspicious of the method that they have chosen. The interest rate is the sole mechanism for regulating the economy. All the evidence is that the heat is being taken on the exchange rate, with the damage that we are now seeing, especially for larger-scale manufacturing and agriculture.
It is necessary only to go to the north of England, as I did earlier this week, to see the discrepancy within a policy that is supposed to be one size to fit all. There is the difference between north and south, between large businesses and small businesses and between dot.com companies and, as they are already being called disparagingly within the City, not.com companies. Those companies are equally important to the creation of the wealth that we all need. There is the disparity also between those who must rely on pension funds for their income and those who enjoy big City bonuses.
The high exchange rate is damaging business and manufacturing, and is sucking in imports. I do not offer the House any easy answers. I know that the euro is weak, and weaker than it was designed to be. I would have preferred the Chancellor at least to address the problem in his Budget statement. I could find no reference to the exchange rate nor acknowledgement of the real pain that is being felt in manufacturing throughout the hour that he spoke to the House on Tuesday.
On the contrary, it is this Government who have increased the costs of manufacturing. Manufacturing uses diesel, and the Chancellor increased the cost of it. Manufacturing also uses labour. Similarly, the Chancellor has increased the costs of labour as well as stamp duty on commercial property, and all the rest of it.
It has always puzzled me why the Government have got it in for savers. The Government wanted to continue to fuel consumption as soon as they took office, but I have

1155
never understood why they wanted to attack savers at the same time. However, they have done it consistently. In the 1997 Budget, they put a pensions tax on dividends. In 1998, they abolished PEPs and TESSAs and replaced them with less generous ISAs. In 1999, they introduced the 10p starting rate of tax, but for the very people who one would think should be encouraged to save, they left the savings rate at 20 per cent.
We are left with the ludicrous position that base rate taxpayers who are paying 23p or 22p on their income have a lower rate of 20p on their savings. Starting rate taxpayers who are paying income tax at 10p must pay double that rate on their savings. That is not logical. Cumulatively, all the attacks on saving help to explain why the proportion of household income that is saved—the savings ratio—has fallen dramatically from 10.6 per cent. in 1997 to 5.5 per cent. now.
I know that in times of low inflation the savings ratio tends to fall, but it has been falling quite consistently and I think that it is now worryingly low. I ask the Government to re-examine ISA take-up. The point of ISAs, as the Government originally intended them—and fair play to them—was to take the PEPs and TESSAs culture to those people who had not yet been affected. They wanted to get new people to save who had not considered saving before. I ask the Government to consider the complexity of the rules. If the Chancellor had addressed these matters, he would have my support. There is confusion between the maxi-ISA, for example, and the mini-ISA.
I urge the Chancellor to do something about the 20 per cent. on savings that the 10 per cent. taxpayer has to pay. Why not scrap the provision altogether? We are talking about the very people whom we should be encouraging to save.
It has taken a long time for the Government to come clean on the rising tax burden. The Chancellor has hedged and hedged before the Treasury Select Committee and it was finally the official spokesman from Downing street who admitted—the Red Book makes no bones about it—that the tax burden has increased. Despite defining the burden as net taxes and social security expenditure as proportionate gross domestic product, the burden has risen from 36 per cent. in the last year of the Conservative Government to nearly 38 per cent. this year, and it will continue increasing.
We were told originally that the burden was falling. Then we were told that it would fall, or the Government hoped that it would. Now it has increased, and the people have begun to notice that. Mortgage interest relief at source and the married couples allowance have disappeared. We have had increases in the price of petrol and all the so-called stealth taxes. My constituents are asking what they are seeing for the extra taxes that they are paying.
As I understand it, Labour was elected above all else to make a difference, yet motorists are paying more for their petrol while public transport gets worse. We are all paying more council tax, yet we have 1,700 fewer police officers and crime rising for the first time in six years. We are all paying more stealth taxes, yet we have 248,000 more people waiting to see a national health service consultant. The Government promised higher quality public services and instead we have longer queues.
1156
Suddenly, three years on, we have the promise of shed loads more money for health and education. Suddenly, the Chancellor is so worried about why people do not think that schools and hospitals have improved that cheques are being sent to schools three years into a Labour Government and £2 billion extra is going to the NHS. Next week, there is to be an 8 per cent. increase for education, and the further £2 billion will make £4 billion in all for the NHS. What were the Government doing before to make them plan public expenditure like this?
Mr. Gardiner: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the 10p and 20p tax rates on savings. Is he not aware that one of the Budget measures is that the extension to savings of the 10p starting rate of income tax will now be effective from 6 April 1999? His point is no longer relevant, and the time differential was accounted for in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's remarks.
Mr. Fallon: I am sure that that is helpful, but what was the point of the 20p rate on savings for those on 10p tax? I would not tax at all those on the very lowest incomes who pay the starting rate.
Like all Conservative Members, I welcome the increase for education and congratulate the Secretary of State and his ministerial team on securing it. As I recall, negotiations with the Treasury are never easy, and it is a good increase. Is it a one-off payment, though, or will next year's Budget—or even the pre-Budget report—allocate similar annual payments directly to schools? Has a precedent been set?
Unless I misheard him, the Secretary of State said that the one-off payments would be targeted. When he publishes the guidance—he said, perhaps by mistake, that it was already available, but I certainly have not seen it—will he make it clear what the payments can be used for? Are schools free, for example, to use them for teachers' pay? Will they be able to use them to fund the new performance-related pay bonuses, or are they restricted to the non-salary element of their delegated budgets?
Mr. Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In Education questions earlier, the Secretary of State specifically related the amount of money to the number of teachers employed, and clearly schools cannot go around employing teachers unless they have some certainty for the future, so I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter.
Mr. Fallon: That is a most helpful intervention. I apologise to the House for not having been present at Education questions. I was speaking to a school group, which I suppose is a better excuse than some. As that intervention demonstrated, if the payments are for the salary side, they will bind schools into commitments that they may not be able to meet in subsequent years.
Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fallon: I am sure that this intervention will be as helpful as the hon. Gentleman's previous one, so I will.
Mr. Gardiner: Indeed, I intend to be helpful. The Secretary of State said specifically that the moneys were

1157
to be used by head teachers in whatever way they chose. He was also specific on the extra £2,000 for performance-related pay and said that it would come directly from central Government as teachers break through the threshold.
Mr. Fallon: In trying to be helpful, the hon. Gentleman is digging the Secretary of State into a bigger hole. If the head teacher can use the money however he chooses and he decides to use it to top up teachers' pay or to recruit an extra part-time teacher, what certainty has he that the money will be repeated in subsequent years? There may be no mystery here, and perhaps the Minister will make it clear that the money is a one-off and head teachers had better look out and not make commitments that they cannot meet in subsequent years, or perhaps he will say that it was always intended that at least that amount and no less should be repeated in subsequent years, but I hope that he will agree that the matter can be easily cleared up at the end of this debate.
As I understand it, the extra payments will be given indiscriminately to every school, irrespective of performance, on the basis of pupil numbers. I have no objection to that, but it is not what the Government said last year, when they produced public service agreements saying—it is all there on page 11—that the money allocated to the Department for Education and Employment would be specifically committed in return for meeting certain performance targets.
That was the whole point of public service agreements. That is the agreement that the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State signed in blood, but on Tuesday we heard that schools would get their cheques irrespective of whether they had achieved their literacy or GCSE targets. Have the agreements been abandoned? Perhaps the literacy targets have been abandoned. That might get the Secretary of State off the hook, as I think that he promised to resign if they were not met.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked what were the Government's intentions towards local education authorities. As it happens, I do not agree with him. He said that one must seriously debate whether one wants Ministers in charge of the system, making all the payments centrally, or whether councillors should be in charge, ensuring democratic accountability. I can only say to him—he has left now, so I say it to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who may be his parliamentary private secretary, for all I know—that that is not the stark choice. I do not want either in charge of the system.
As I said repeatedly when I was a Minister, and as I have written endlessly since, I do not think that either Ministers or councillors should be in charge of the education system. In the end, parents should be in charge. That is the whole purpose of our free schools policy. Parents should be in the driving seat and able to choose freely the schools that suit their children's particular skills and abilities.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough also tempted the Minister into the field of higher education. He was right to ask for clarification, and I think that he got some, on the fact that the Government do not intend to have top-up fees. He went on to try to draw a distinction between top-up fees and differential fees. I do not think that there is a distinction. I see no objection in
1158
principle to the very best universities being able to devise such arrangements, provided that they are supported in other ways, through alumni and business contributions.
I would start at the other end. The cruellest deception, having expanded higher education, is to pretend that the university at the very bottom is delivering the same quality of research, scholarship and higher education as those at the very top. My only regret about our reforms to end the binary line and bring polytechnics fully into higher education status is that we did not go further and introduce more of a market system by encouraging proper publication of the outcomes so that students are not tempted by anecdote, history or the personality of a teacher or head of department to sign up for courses that lead to a worse outcome, with less chance of getting a job at the end.
It can be said in the Chancellor's favour that at least he did not try to triple count the new money he gave the NHS, as he has done before. We did not hear as much about the £21 billion as we did when it was announced two years ago. Indeed, the £21 billion was not only triple counted, but we were told that it was enough to give the NHS all the resources it needed. The famous £21 billion was announced in 1998 and started to take effect in April 1999. Before the first year of all that extra, triple-counted money has ended, the Government have suddenly said that it was not enough. Now an extra £2 billion has to be found and health service spending must jump from 3 per cent. to 6.1 per cent. a year. Suddenly, the NHS needs wholesale reform. What have the Government been doing for the past three full years?
In return for the extra taxes, the public deserve to see better quality public spending. We heard nothing about a reduction in the welfare bill, which is still rising. Less money should be wasted on dealing with asylum seekers, and that problem should be tackled at source. Less money should be wasted on regional bureaucracy and a tougher approach taken to public spending across the board.
I am a little wary of the various small tax breaks that the Chancellor introduced for business. Of course industry welcomes capital allowances and those who are offered free computers or special deals on the leases welcome that. However, too much of the help announced on Tuesday is spread too thinly. Behind that assistance lies the dangerous assumption that e-commerce is now the only form of enterprise on the table. E-commerce is important, but in many respects it is a means to enterprise, not the only enterprise. The Government are trying to be fashionable in channelling extra money to a sector that appears to have much activity and investment already. Do the dot.com companies need that extra public subsidy? They seem to get a lot of attention without it.
The business postbag in my constituency has a different agenda. Businesses complain about the level of business rates, but I heard nothing on Tuesday about the level of the uniform business rate, which is a huge and—with the revaluation—growing burden on business. Above all, I heard nothing on Tuesday about the Government's so-called campaign to cut red tape. We had a deregulation task force. The Government call it the better regulation task force. That is not just semantics, because we have seen no deregulation. We used to have 30 or 40 deregulation orders a year, but the Government have hardly any.

1159
Businesses might have forsaken a penny or so off corporation tax if they no longer had to put up with all the extra bureaucracy of the working families tax credit, the minimum wage, paternity leave, the working time directive and the rest. The Government now expect businesses to be an arm of Government—to be tax collectors, benefit offices and immigration officials, all of which simply adds to costs.
I have some other concerns about the Budget and I was glad that the hon. Member for Dudley, South expressed some scepticism about the role of regional venture funds. Venture capital was a problem four or five years ago, but it is less so now. We seem to be awash with venture capital funds up and down the country, looking for investment opportunities. Rather than putting taxpayers' money into state venture capital funds and investing in regional bureaucracies, we should put it into infrastructure itself.
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because my intervention will save me making a point in my speech later, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee is taking evidence on the urban White Paper, and it has become clear that there is now a huge variety of funds of one sort or another and many different organisations with overlapping responsibilities for urban regeneration. The situation is so bad that bureaucracy has now become an obstacle to urban regeneration, and that example reinforces the point that my hon. Friend is making.
Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend is right. When we had highly focused development corporations in specific areas—usually riverside areas, such as Merseyside, Teesside, Tyneside and Wearside—they could channel money where it was most needed, improve the infrastructure and the skills base, and refurbish the industrial landscape. Now we have a surfeit of such programmes, none of which interlock properly, and public money will be poured into bad venture capital opportunities, instead of into the infrastructure on which most business men would prefer it to be spent.
Labour has had the benefit of the doubt. After three full years and four big Budgets, it can no longer shelter behind the legacy that we left them or the great supply side reforms of the 1980s. The Government told the people that a Labour Government would be different. So far, things are not different; all that has happened is that people are paying more and getting less.
3.37 pm
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: My speech will be brief, factual and relevant to today's debate and the proposals in the Budget on education and employment, rather than being philosophical and speculative. I welcome the proposals outlined in my right hon. Friend's Budget on Tuesday. Employment and education are the lifeblood of the country, and the announcements by my right hon. Friend will give a massive boost to these sectors.
Unemployment is at its lowest level for two decades, and more than 800,000 new jobs have been created since the election. What is more pleasing is that some 80 per
1160
cent. of the increase in employment over the past year was in full-time work. In addition, long-term unemployment, which seemed never-ending during the Tory years, has fallen by 67 per cent., and youth unemployment has been cut by 74 per cent. in my constituency. So, at last, it is the Labour Government who are giving the younger generation the opportunities to work, which under the Tories were denied to them.
No one can deny the harmful effects that mass unemployment has on society. For example, all hon. Members will remember how crime rose significantly during the high unemployment of the 1980s under Conservative rule. The link is unquestionable, and I am proud that this Government have been prepared to face up to that challenge. I believe that the Government will step up that fight in the near future.
The announcement that the employment and windfall levy allocations of £455.5 million will be phased in over the next two years to allow the extension of support to get people back into work is excellent news.
Under the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, partnerships must ensure equal opportunities for people of ethnic minority backgrounds. That is important in my constituency and I welcome the fact that the Government are asking the equality commissions, working with employers and other organisations, to put together an effective package of support and advice for businesses. I have many businesses in my constituency—medium and small businesses are flourishing there.
I also welcome the fact that the Government intend to intensify and extend the new deal for the over-25s on a national basis from April 2001. Building on the principles of the new deal for the under-25s, it will help those who have been unemployed for 18 months or more to find work. The package will be backed by extra steps to advertise the support and advice available to jobseekers aged 25 and over.
Similarly, the new deal for the over-50s was launched in nine pathfinder areas on 4 November and will be rolled out nationally in April 2000. Pilots for the new deal for disabled people have also been launched. It will help people with disabilities to remain in work. There is also an enhanced package of the new deal to help more lone parents, including all those with children over three, and to offer more options for those considering work, plus an extra £12 million for child care for those in further education, providing an extra 10,000 places.
In addition, the employment tax credit to extend a guaranteed minimum income to people without children, the new job grant of £100 from April 2001 to ease the transition into work for those who have been unemployed for a year, and the package to tackle the multi-billion pound hidden economy are all to be applauded.
On education, the schools in Ealing, Southall will benefit from the extra £1 billion announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. That money will be vital in recruiting more teachers and buying more books. The money includes an average of an extra £45 per pupil next year, and a typical secondary school in England will receive a direct grant of £40,000 extra in the year from April to help in the drive to improve standards in schools.
However, everyone recognises that standards in teaching should be high from the start if we are to improve literacy, so primary schools will receive grants worth up to £9,000 each. The provision of an extra

1161
£20 million to help primary schools to provide catch-up literacy and numeracy for the weakest pupils is also good news. That is on top of the £42 million that has already been announced, and it shows the Government's commitment to ensuring that children have the three Rs.
I must mention the Government's commitment to provide section 11 funding to local authorities, which was abolished by the Tories. I also welcome the fact that the Government have not forgotten the importance of special schools, which will also receive a grant of £15,000 each.
The need for skills is very important to our economy, and the Government have clearly recognised that to achieve this more people must go into higher education. That process is already taking place, but the announcement that £53 million of recurrent spending will be used to extend education maintenance allowances and to support a campaign to encourage young people to stay on in education can only add to the list of incentives for young people.
There is something in this Budget to please everyone. It shows a commitment to the Labour party's core values of achieving full employment and maintaining and improving the public services that we all cherish so much. It is a comprehensive package of measures that I warmly welcome, and I am sure that my constituents will also welcome it.
Finally, I believe that the economy is safe in the hands of our ablest Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Action Man of the 21st century.
3.45 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: At the risk of losing friends on the Opposition Benches and gaining them on the Labour Benches, I generally welcome what seems to be a balanced and fair Budget, in which the Chancellor has attempted to be both even-handed and, in some spheres, relatively imaginative.
That said, I have misgivings about a number of things, and it is on those that I shall concentrate. Although I will naturally refer to matters that affect Northern Ireland and my constituents, I will also speak in general terms as many right hon. and hon. Members throughout the country experience similar problems.
On social security and pensioners—the older folk—there is no doubt that one welcomes the increased social security benefits for families and the extra £50 for pensioners, plus the 1p off income tax. One also welcomes the increases in the personal and age-related allowances and the fact that the £3,000 cash limit and £7,000 overall limit for ISA contributions is to be extended for another year.
Personally, I welcome the affordable warmth programme and the reduction of value added tax on insulation, heating and so forth to 5 per cent. Hon. Members will know of my association with the plumbing industry.
However, there is a downside, which the Chancellor did not mention—indeed, the Government have not mentioned the matter for some considerable time—because the standing charge is to remain for everyone who has a BT line rental. The standing charge is proportionately much greater for people who use the telephone only a little. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) has tabled an early-day motion,
1162
which has received 112 signatures, to ask that the charge be reconsidered. I hope that the Government will look at it, although I do not know within whose power it lies.
Another concern relates to the reduction in the television licence for residential homes, as there is an anomaly. Apparently, if housing associations have a vacant dwelling, they are obliged to offer it to someone who may not be a pensioner even if all the other residents are pensioners. If a building is divided into six apartments, one of which is given to a person who is not a pensioner, every person in that building must then pay the full price for the television licence. In such a case, the five pensioners would all have to pay the full licence fee because the building contained one person who was not a pensioner. I know that that anomaly has been examined before and was supposed to have been sorted out, but it clearly needs to be looked at again.
I welcome the training in industry for people who have become unemployed, but I greatly regret the loss of the apprenticeship scheme, as it used to be conceived. The schemes that still exist are slightly different from what we had in the past, when people gained technical knowledge and a great grounding in the industry in which they were to be employed. It is sad that more support is not given to apprenticeship schemes.
Mr. Boswell: All hon. Members will welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about apprenticeship schemes, and my experience of the modern schemes is that they are very powerful. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however—in the context of potential redundancies in Northern Ireland, and given what has happened at Rover in the west midlands—that it is extremely important that the Government secure continuity in the education and development of people engaged in apprenticeship schemes who are made redundant?
Mr. Forsythe: That is a very fair point, and I hope that the Government pay attention to it. It is essential that that continuity be secured.
The air passenger duty is a great bone of contention in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that for economy class it has been reduced to £5, and that for travel within the European Union it remains at a level £10. People may consider that the business-class price of £40 for people travelling from outside the EU is easily affordable, but Northern Ireland—like other parts of the United Kingdom—wants to attract business people and their industries or businesses into the area. People coming to Northern Ireland, and to other parts of the UK, are being penalised by the cost of the air fare whenever they come back, and that is a great disadvantage.
The highlands and islands of Scotland have been granted a concession over air fares. I welcome that and fully support it. However, the absence of the same concession for Northern Ireland means that the Province is once again disadvantaged, this time by the strip of water that separates it from the UK mainland. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered that problem. We in Northern Ireland do not expect jam all the time, but that matter deserves to be looked at.
For obvious environmental reasons, I welcome the fact that vehicle excise duty is to be graduated. The fuel tax escalator is to be ring-fenced, and I understand that it will be neutral this year. As a result, the ring fencing that will

1163
give money to other parts of economy will not apply this year. However, if the duty rises in the future, and if the resources thus realised return to the Treasury, will the money be held centrally or will it go to the regions from whence it came?
Moreover, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has raised the price of oil substantially this year, and the cost may rise further. I hope that the Chancellor will take that into consideration in the future.
Northern Ireland shares a land frontier with another EU nation. That is a great disadvantage to filling stations near the border. Other colleagues have told Ministers that before, but the point is worth repeating. The vehicle excise duty also causes difficulty for our transport industry.
I have some reservations about ring fencing. In last year's Budget, we in Northern Ireland were promised extra money for roads in certain parts of the Province. We later discovered, however, that the money was to come from the sale of the port of Belfast. It now appears that, if the port is not sold, the money will not be made available. I therefore hope that, in future, ring-fenced money that becomes available will be passed on.
I mentioned that I welcomed, for environmental reasons, the introduction of graduated vehicle excise duty. Travel by bus and rail must also be considered, if we are to have a better environment. To cut the use of motor cars and other vehicles, we must turn to rail. Putting lorries on to the railway has great financial consequences, but that remains an option, as does the extension of light rail services. However, public transport must be attractive if people are to be persuaded out of their cars. If we make it attractive enough, we may have some success. We in Northern Ireland do not benefit from the free concessionary fare schemes administered by councils in Great Britain. As the House can imagine, that lack does not go down very well with our pensioners.
There is great deal of debate in this capital city among certain people about the railways and the tube. Such a debate can only be good, and we hope that something positive will come from it. Unfortunately, the amount of money spent on Northern Ireland's railway system is miserably low. It was suggested that it needed an investment of £80 million, and better rolling stock, to bring it up to standard. We were then told that the amount spent would be £18 million, after which we discovered that it would be £5 million. I hope that through the auspices of the House, those who are responsible for the railways in Northern Ireland will look again at that investment. If they need to speak to the Chancellor about it, we have his representatives here on the Treasury Bench who I am sure, knowing them as I do, are listening carefully.
We need a planning strategy for the environment and the roads, and everything else that needs to be done. Part of that strategy should be to build more on brownfield sites than on greenfield sites. It is nice to live in the country, and I suppose that when people buy a house in a rural area, they get comfortable and do not want anyone else to join them. I understand that—it is human nature. I do not know yet whether there is a plan in Northern Ireland for brownfield sites. It would be most unfortunate, however, if we got to the stage of digging up graveyards to use as brownfield sites. We should draw the line at that.
1164
The international airport is in my constituency. It is privately run, and a lot of money has been put into it. The people who run it are doing their best to attract international flights. As part of that operation, they are planning an extension. I was speaking a moment ago about the planning of brownfield sites. It is most unfortunate that the planning service appears to be holding up operations that include upgrading the roads and bringing them up to standard, resulting in a different way of approaching the airport. The current suggestion is to extend one part of the rail system. Sadly, it is then proposed to close down another part. When we are looking at ways of attracting people to use trains and buses instead of cars, it seems ridiculous that the extension of one section of the rail system means that another will close. That should be looked at very carefully.
On the climate change levy, from the point of view of Northern Ireland I welcome the five-year moratorium for natural gas, provided that the European Union agrees. I spoke earlier about air passenger duty. We welcome that gesture towards Northern Ireland.
There is much in the Budget with which the Chancellor, the Government and Labour Back Benchers should be pleased. However, there are problems that the Government must face up to if they wish to achieve their overall aims. My party and I share many of those objectives. By taking my advice, that of my party and that of colleagues in other regions of the United Kingdom whose parties are represented in the House, the Budget can be beneficial to the UK as a whole. That will happen only if the guidance of right hon. and hon. Members is heeded and their comments are given the consideration that they deserve.
4.6 pm
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe). I agree with many of his remarks. He pointed out some of the anomalies in the tax system, particularly for elderly people living in residential homes or sheltered accommodation.
The Budget is very welcome on this side of the House. The investments in education and, in particular, the health service, gave us all considerable cheer. To make those investments in the public services, we have had to manage the economy soundly. We inherited a lot of debt, and had to bring about stability. Some Conservative Members have asked, "Why now?" We have made steady increases over the years, and we do not want to return to a situation of spending today and cuts tomorrow.
The Budget also builds on important social reforms that we have been proud to bring about for a fairer, more equal society. I refer to the minimum wage and the new deal. Many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned youth unemployment in their constituencies. In mine, it has fallen by 89 per cent. One important feature of the measurement of the new deal that is not contained in the Red Book is its quality. Young people who have been through previous, programmes are cynical because there was little investment to back them up. One young man I knew wanted to go into retail, and his training programme consisted of washing cars on a forecourt. There was nothing about customer liaison or marketing. Not surprisingly, he became disillusioned and gave it up after

1165
a few weeks. The quality of the new deal comes through when we talk to young people who have been on the programme.
We have seen paid holidays for workers, and have tackled child poverty. I hope that the trade union reform will soon be enacted. Trade union membership is on the increase. That should be welcomed, as it ensures fairness at work and minimum standards. The working families tax credit and the increases announced by my right hon. Friend in the Budget were very welcome. Even more hard-working families will benefit—there are some 1,500 in my constituency.
One of my local citizens advice bureaux ran a campaign to encourage people to apply for the working families tax credit. The manager wrote to me recently, saying that some families had received more than £100 extra a week and were surprised and delighted by the magnitude of such sums. Those are her words, not mine.
We know that many people are not taking up the working families tax credit. The Government have run a high-profile campaign, but we need to do more. As I understand it, some 400,000 families could be eligible. If our national advertising campaign has not been as successful as we want, perhaps we should look for a more local focus. The Government should perhaps invite local authorities or citizens advice bureaux to spread good practice and there could be some reward incentive for those who produce the best results.
On the welfare-to-work agenda, we have yet to grapple with one piece of the jigsaw—housing benefit. In areas where rents are high and when the benefit clawback can be up to 70p in the pound, people have no real incentive to move into work. They receive the working families tax credit, but then face housing benefit and council tax benefit clawbacks, and perhaps feel that all was not made clear to them. That is a great challenge to the Government. I look forward to the Green Paper, but housing benefit represents a considerable difficulty. It is undoubtedly a cousin of the Child Support Agency.
Housing in the south-east is expensive. There are competing pressures to protect the countryside and ensure that indigenous populations can remain in the towns and villages that they come from and where their extended families are. It is no good any political party saying that it supports the family if families have nowhere to live because they cannot afford rents, because land values are so high or they cannot afford to purchase property. Yet that is exactly what will happen if we do not have planned development.
Furthermore, without housing development, prices will not just go through the roof, as some commentators have said, but in London and the south-east they will go into orbit. People such as postmen are essential in our communities, but how can they afford to buy a family home that costs £100,000 or £150,000? Such sums are beyond scores of ordinary working people. To halt development would be to create a scenario in which prices rise sharply. I welcome the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that planning should be reviewed every five years. That is a far more sensible approach than predict and provide, and letting housing development rip.
The competing force is the need to protect the countryside. I have lived all my life in the county of Kent, which boasts some of the most beautiful countryside in
1166
the United Kingdom. I will not stand by and allow concreting all over the place, which is what some Opposition Members have suggested will happen. It is obvious and right that we should build on brownfield sites, but it is much more costly to build on contaminated land, so we must consider incentives for builders to deal with those costs.
I know that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is set to hold a review of how stamp duty could provide incentives for brownfield development. On page 119 of the Red Book, the Government talk about regenerating our cities and protecting our countryside. They say:
the Government is attracted to the idea of offering relief from stamp duty for new developments on brownfield land.
They say that they welcome the urban renaissance report by Lord Rogers of Riverside. I look forward to taking part in that consultation, but nowhere in the Red Book is reference made to the main recommendation in Lord Rogers' report on harmonisation of VAT levels for new build on greenfield sites, and for renovation and brownfield development. If the statement of intent is to move taxation from goods on to bads, how can it be that building a £2 million mock tudor mansion on a greenfield site is zero-rated—zero-rating is supposed to be for social reasons—when doing up two or three empty terraced properties in Chatham for families on low incomes is charged at the full rate of 17.5 per cent.? The additional costs to the housing association working in partnership with a private landlord are passed on. We know that housing benefit levels are a barrier to welfare to work. Such building is not only environmental but social. It meets all the tests—social, environmental and economic. It is sustainable development.
The Government have not made as much progress as I would want. I have made my contribution in Adjournment debates, ten-minute Bills and early-day motions. My closing remarks in the first Adjournment debate were that the Government should not put the problem in the tray marked "too difficult". That was two years ago. It does not seem to have got out of the tray. Certainly, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions wants VAT harmonisation. Bodies such as the Civic Trust, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and every conceivable housing body that has a view about regeneration regard it as absolutely essential. I welcome the proposal on stamp duty, but I remain to be convinced that it is the way to deal with the thousands and thousands of empty properties. I shall now move on to more positive things.
By my rough calculations, £600,000 will go to the schools in my constituency. As a governor for many years, I know that they will welcome it. Earlier, we heard the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman complaining about disillusionment. I do not think that people will be disillusioned with the money and I do not see disillusionment when I open new nurseries or computer suites. I do not see disillusionment about the numeracy hour, the literacy hour or raising standards.
I welcome the Government's decision to give resources to head teachers to spend as they want. That is an important point. I shall deal with the restrictions on the standards fund in a moment. I think that we all agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that head teachers are vital. It is important that they embrace raising standards in schools. In any successful school, one will

1167
find an energetic, committed, highly skilled head teacher. It is argued that, in the main, the new money should go straight to schools. Essentially, that is a good idea, but we should not ignore local knowledge. I certainly do not agree with the idea that we should have a national funding formula. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about that. I caution the Government against a national funding formula. If we lose that local knowledge, we will not necessarily target the money where it is needed.
Some schools in Kent have a large surplus, but others are struggling. The ones that are struggling are often the secondary moderns in deprived areas with up to 60 per cent. special needs pupils. It is not difficult to see how a head teacher in a school that does not have a sixth form and therefore has fewer pupils can feel a sense of injustice when he knows that the well-resourced school up the road receives more money. It is important that LEAs continue to have a role in distributing resources. I see from my notes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was committed to continuing partnerships with LEAs. I welcome that.
My right hon. Friend talked about the importance of enabling head teachers to spend their budgets how they want. Head teachers have told me that certain categories of the standards fund are too rigid. If small sums go from the local authority to the school, it is often difficult for the school to spend them with any effect. One head teacher told me that he received £250 for drug prevention. He was not allowed to buy books with it and there was not very much that he could do with it. But if a number of schools in an area put their £250 together, they could do something far more creative. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look into that. There are many other such examples.
If the schools do not spend the money, it goes back to the Department. I wonder how much money comes back each year because of the lack of flexibility. Rather than rigid categories, there should be broad headings with flexibility within them.
Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about some of the comments that have been made about school funding? They seem to suggest that money allocated via LEAs is not entirely in the hands of governors and head teachers. Under the local management of schools system, heads and governors have always decided how to spend their block grant from the LEA. Often, the money from the Department for Education and Employment is more constrained than money from the LEA, which is a block grant for heads and governors to spend at their discretion.
Mr. Shaw: I presume that the money that has been announced will go into the delegated budgets to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Although we want targeted outcomes, with no money wasted on bureaucracy, we need to incorporate some flexibility so that head teachers do not return the money—as some of those to whom I have spoken suggested they might do. We need a broad approach, rather than such strict categories. I hope that Ministers will take note of that point, especially in the light of my right hon. Friend's remarks about flexibility.
1168
Overall, however, the extra spending is welcome—£600,000 for schools in my constituency cannot be sniffed at.
Equally welcome is the substantial boost for the national health service. A 6 per cent. increase will take the service into a new era and will meet the aspirations of the country. People want that massive expenditure.
Since we were elected, we have been building up the service. The accident and emergency department at Medway hospital in my constituency was dilapidated; there had been no investment since the 1970s. The final stage of its refurbishment is now being completed. That would not have happened without the additional resources that the Government have allocated.
The Conservatives have committed themselves to our spending commitments on health and—today—on education. However, they are also committed to cut overall taxation if they are elected at the next general election. How will they square all those extra billions of pounds that we plan to put in, if they bring about another recession? How will they pay the dole cheques? Who will be first in line for cuts in the public services? If it is not to be schools or hospitals, will it be roads or local authorities? Who will be first in the firing line? The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) did not answer that question. I do not think that the Conservatives will give us an answer, but the question is legitimate and we shall ask it constantly. The electorate will want to know the answer, because Conservative policy does not add up.
Meanwhile, there will be many calls on the additional resources in the health budget. I shall make my pitch now. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill is being considered in the other place. The Bill is superb. I have worked with young people leaving care and am aware of the many deficiencies in the system. We all have responsibility for that—irrespective of political party. Up to 75 per cent. of young people leaving care have no educational qualifications. Up to 50 per cent. of those young people are unemployed and 20 per cent. experience homelessness within two years.
The Bill is excellent, apart from one aspect—the statutory age is raised only to 18. All the research, including that described in the splendid document, "Me, Survive, Out There?: New Arrangements for Young People Living in and Leaving Care", suggests that the age should be 21. The Government have stated their aspiration that it should be 21, if finances are available. However, if the money is not available now, it never will be. I make that pitch on behalf of those young people.
On average, young people in stable families with a reasonable upbringing leave home at the age of 23. The most abused youngsters in our community leave care at the age of 16 or 17—we are now raising the age to 18. We must raise it to 21.
Recently, I met a young man who had been in care, where he was managing to study for his A-levels—quite unusual among that group—but when he reached his 18th birthday, he was told, "You are leaving, you are going into a bedsit". That was four months before he was due to finish his A-levels. What a disgrace. Not surprisingly, he did not manage to complete his studies, although he has now started again. I am glad to say that the social services department has rectified the matter and he is now in supportive accommodation. But why should he have had to face that problem in the first place? That happens to hundreds of young people leaving care.

1169
Finally, I want to mention the paper industry. Some 1.4 million tonnes of paper and board is produced every year in my constituency. Over recent years, the paper industry has contracted—a painful process, in which many skilled workers lost their jobs, due to overcapacity and the strength of the pound. There have been shut-downs because of global ownership. Last year, a mill in my constituency owned by Kimberly-Clark closed with the loss of 250 jobs. The mill was profitable, but, because of overcapacity, the company decided to close it. The other Kimberly-Clark mill is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), who is in the Chamber. He was obviously relieved that his mill was not the one that closed. There are similar examples of mill closures in Kent and throughout the country.
However, there are major opportunities for the paper industry—not only through job creation, but in the protection of our environment. I refer to paper recycling. The UK's current recycling rate is relatively low compared with those of other major EU nations. We recycle about 40.5 per cent., compared with Germany's 70 per cent. and the Netherlands' 62 per cent. Figures from the Paper Federation of Great Britain Ltd. show that, for every thousand tonnes of paper that we recycle, we create 13 jobs—not necessarily at the mill itself, but in street collections and other processes in the green-collar industry.
Everyone is committed to recycling. We all think it is a good idea, nationally and locally—for example, through local Agenda 21 programmes. Local authorities in my constituency are no exception. However, in order for councils to collect paper or other goods for recycling, there must be somewhere for them to take the material—there has to be a processing site. At present, all the recycling mills in the UK are full to capacity. There are three such mills—one of them is in my constituency. If the councils have nowhere to take the material and cannot set up long-term contracts, recycling will not happen.
We need to consider other ways to finance recycling. If we could make more imaginative use of the landfill tax—perhaps by considering hypothecation to local authorities so that they can set up recycling schemes—there would be the capacity to provide mills and the paper companies would have the confidence to invest. It costs about £250 million to set up a mill with a capacity of 350,000 tonnes—that is about the minimum needed to make those operations work. The landfill tax is innovative, but we need to consider other measures. We need to involve local authorities, which will have to collect the waste paper, so that they can provide the amounts of paper needed by large mills to make the process viable.
Failing that, under the comprehensive spending review, the Government might consider providing financial assistance to companies who want to set up mills. At present, the risk is too great. If there is no revenue stream for the local authority to collect the paper, the step between collection and mill operation is too wide. Companies are not prepared to risk that investment and there is no sign that another mill will be set up.
That is my shopping list for my colleagues on the Treasury Bench. The Budget is welcome. It is a landmark for the NHS; it will provide more money for schools in my constituency and will continue to raise standards—all brought about by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's excellent stewardship of the public finances.
4.30 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). I have done that before and have learned to respect his expertise and experience in child care issues. I listened to his remarks on that and on the Bill going through the Lords with great interest.
I was delighted with the central section of the hon. Gentleman's speech and what he said about urban regeneration and the different taxation levels that there should be for brownfield and greenfield sites. He nearly said that the Budget was woeful in that respect; that is clearly what he implied. It has been a grotesque missed opportunity and it is not good enough for the Government to say—two years after they began to consider these issues—that they are attracted to the idea of offering relief from stamp duty for new developments on brownfield land. Such a proposal could and should have been in the Budget.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would oppose the concreting over of Kent. I take it that his speech was the start of his opposition to that. We shall learn on Monday the number of new houses that will be imposed on Kent by central Government. I hope that he will join me and many other Members in opposing the way that central Government have imposed extra houses on areas without seeking the consent of local people. The Government have not paid regard to the environmental consequences that will flow from new developments, to the infrastructure that needs to be built and to the quality of life of our constituents that the hon. Gentleman and I seek to protect.
Mr. Shaw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman remembers my other point. If we do not have any development, the indigenous population will be simply priced out of the market. A policy that says that only local authorities will provide planning permission is tantamount to saying, "Get off my land."
Mr. Blunt: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Local authorities have a responsibility to all local people. If they fail to discharge that responsibility and fail to provide sufficient houses for the whole range of the population—including nurses, teachers, policemen, cleaners and all the other parts of our society that have to find houses even though they have different levels of income—they will fail in their duty to their community. If local authorities fail to make proper judgments in the interests of their whole community, they will pretty rapidly, and properly, be voted out of office. Local people will feel the consequences if services cannot be provided because people in the jobs that I have mentioned have been priced out of the market. There is no reason why local authorities are any more incompetent to take such decisions and face up to the facts than central Government are capable of somehow being omniscient. That is part of the problem with the Budget.
To pick up a final point from the hon. Gentleman's speech, he asked what the Conservatives would do if we had the tax guarantee and we went into recession. We would borrow in a recession, and not tax. That is what we did in the previous recession. We would ensure that the pattern of taxation did not rise unsustainably, and remained constant. Obviously, in a recession, the pattern of expenditure rises because of the demand from areas

1171
such as social security. However, we would try to keep taxation rates relatively stable, and we would worsen the recession if we did not borrow in such circumstances. However, such borrowing is not sustainable in the long term, and I shall return to the issues of debt and of borrowing.
It would be useful to consider the Budget in its historical context. We have been told that history began on 1 May 1997, but it did not. We need to examine the state of the United Kingdom economy and what we should be doing in the era in which we find ourselves. We are in a uniquely beneficent era for our country. We are at peace in the sense that there has not been a world war since 1945 and we have probably reached the stage where we have cleared off the debts of two world wars. Our country was bankrupt; it cost a quarter of the total wealth of the country and the empire to pay for the second world war. That was the cost of that conflict and, at that stage, we were still paying off the costs of the first world war.
Since 1945, we have had to find the costs of empire and the withdrawal from empire. Until 1989, we had to find the costs of combating the Soviet Union in the cold war. They were heavy costs borne by our country, which has proudly taken a leading role in the defeat of tyranny in the 20th century.
In addition to having unloaded the burdens of war, empire and the retreat from empire, we are now in a period in which there will be a unique boost to our economy. That boost is similar to the introduction of canals and tarmacadam in the 18th century, to the introduction of the railways in the 19th century, to the introduction of electricity and what that meant for telegrams and telephone communications in the late 19th century and to the introduction of the internal combustion energy and what that meant for the 20th century. For now and the 21st century, the revolution in electronic communication is as profound, if not more profound, than any of those.
All those changes to society brought with them above-trend economic growth. That is what we are enjoying now. However, in all those industries, individual companies sometimes found themselves in difficulty. People rushed to invest in new industries—railway stocks were all the rage in the 19th century—but they caught a pretty severe cold if they overestimated their worth. We might be seeing that happen to dot.com shares, but we are at an early stage of the electronic commerce revolution.
That revolution is providing a unique lift to our economy. That is why the United States has enjoyed an unparalled period of economic growth without recession. It is not that President Clinton has somehow managed to find a magic way to run an economy; there has been a profound change. The nation that is most exposed to electronic communication has been the first to enjoy its benefits. In Europe, this country is the leading nation in that respect and our economy is benefiting the most. That is a good thing and to be commended.
We should also consider changes in society and in the nature of ownership of assets in the past 100 years. We have seen the rise of the middle class and most people now own most of the assets. It is not like the 19th century when 1 per cent. of the population owned
1172
60 per cent. of the assets. We have gone through a profound change. Most people have a pension fund, life insurance and own their own homes. Of course, there is a problem with what people have termed the "underclass". It makes up a significant section of the population, but it is not a majority. That is the change in the nature of the challenge that Government must face when they finance the services that they must provide to the nation.
We should remember that the glittering success of the 1980s in terms of personal pension provision has led to two great benefits for the United Kingdom. First, it has benefited individuals who now have a substantial amount of savings for the future that they would not otherwise have had if they had not been encouraged to save. Secondly, London and the United Kingdom manages more money that is invested for the United Kingdom around the world than any country except the United States of America. For example, a country such as Mexico has no particular link with the UK, but the second biggest investor in Mexico is the UK. That position is repeated all round the world and it is a result of the success of establishing a regime in the 1980s that encouraged people to save.
The Budget failed to address the big problem of the fall in the savings ratio from 11 per cent., which the Government inherited, to 5 per cent. That ratio is not predicted to change significantly; I think that it is to move by 0.1 per cent as a result of the Budget. That is a long-term serious problem for the UK and its people, who will have lower savings.
Mr. Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the fact that, when interest rates in advanced economies have been low—it is reflected now—savings as a ratio have always decreased?
Mr. Blunt: I do not necessarily accept that. I would want the hon. Gentleman to produce evidence. I do not understand how interest rates can be directly linked to savings in equities. People invest in pension, life assurance and trust funds, but not nearly as much as they used to in building societies and cash schemes, simply because the historic rate of return is far better if one is free to invest directly in assets. That is what we should be encouraging people to do.
By worsening the taxation regime for savings, the Government have encouraged fewer people to save. If the tax regime were as generous to savings as it was in the 1980s and 1990s under the previous Administration, the ratio would not have fallen as much. We could all debate the effect of interest rates at the margin, but the fact is that the Government have made the position worse.
I listened with care to the arguments of the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), who appears a convert to the merits of competitiveness and competition. He had a vision of the future of competition and trade in the European Union that is slightly at variance with most of its member countries. I only hope that he is right and they are wrong; time will tell.
There should certainly be broad agreement on the fact that socialism and central planning, as a way of managing the economy, has failed, and that capitalism and free markets by and large work. Happily, Labour Members now admit defeat of the position that they would have held as recently as 10 years ago. They have undergone the

1173
necessary thought revolution—not in the most exemplary fashion by the hon. Member for Dudley, South. We have seen how they have changed and how Governments no longer own industries, departing from the business of managing them.
Despite such a lesson, the most disappointing aspect of the Budget is the recurring theme of "Nanny knows best". Every time that the Chancellor gave out a bit of money, there were strings attached. Even those over 75 years old were given not money but free television licences. That is no good to someone over the age of 75 who does not want to watch television. It is no good if one's little gift from the Government is in the form of an asset that is of no use.
There are endless more schemes for enterprise funds and consultancy and investment incentives. The Chancellor is an accountant's dream. Life is now so complicated for businesses and entrepreneurs that they will spend far more time looking for pots of Government investment than working on ideas and investment that properly belong to them. During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), I drew attention to how that approach is replicated in the variety of different funds, organisations and people who are responsible for elements of urban regeneration.
The Chancellor could not resist doing the same with health. Having announced the £2 billion for the national health service, the Prime Minister told us yesterday that there were strings attached to £660 million of it and that there would be quarterly reviews of the performance of health trusts before they were allowed the next tranche of money.
What has happened to the rest of the £2 billion that has been promised for health? I presume that it has gone to pay this year's accumulated debts of between £500 million and £1 billion, the £200 million underfunding of the most recent health service pay round and the £300 million that has to be reinvested in the health service pension scheme. That pretty much accounts for the £2 billion. Therefore, all that the NHS will receive next year is £660 million with strings attached. Again, that is central Government demanding control.
What was the reason for the difference in treatment of health and education? Why was the Chancellor so keen to passport money directly to head teachers? The answer, of course—this point was made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—is that £4 billion of education spending is already tied up with Government schemes of one sort or another. Such has been the outcry of pain among head teachers at the deluge of paper from Whitehall that the Government seem to have got the message. As a result, some schools are to receive £9,000, and some more. That money will go directly to teachers, and we of course say hooray for that.
Given the unprecedented benign conditions, we ought in the last Budget of the 20th century—those who think that the 20th century ended in 1999 should question whether they are right—to have begun repaying our national debt. If we do not do so now, we never will. I therefore welcome the steps that the Chancellor has taken towards that, although, given the circumstances, he has not gone far enough. Let us at least hope that that approach continues because the benign position will not hold for ever. We have not abolished the business cycle, whatever the Chancellor may think, and I fear that we
1174
have not abolished human nature and the need for Governments to perform the fundamental duty of protecting their citizens from internal and external threats.
Defence from external threat is the first duty of the state. The defence of collective interests was the reason why people in the end came together in this thing called the nation state. It is also the duty of the state to defend people from internal threats, through the criminal justice system. We accept that another proper duty is to protect people from extreme poverty and deprivation. That is why we have a social security system. The matter is all about security.
These days, the state provides great public services in education and health, but we must sit back and ask whether we should accept that it is its duty to underwrite such provision. There is a proper debate to be had about that, and a proper test to be done to find out whether the state should provide health and education services or simply underwrite access to those services.
In the national health service, the United Kingdom has very socialised, or socialist, health provision. In his statement on Tuesday, the Chancellor announced that there had been £49.3 billion of health spending in 1999–2000. I checked that figure in the Red Book and found that it was £40.5 billion, and I wondered what had happened to the difference. Of course, the difference is accounted for by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. So much for devolution: the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—or the Assembly, depending on who is in power—have been told exactly what to spend their money on and are not entitled to decide how much to spend on health and education in their own area.
In The Times today, Anatole Kaletsky makes a powerful case for a national health service, and gives four reasons for making such provision. First, he says,
medical treatment is regarded as a basic human right in almost all modem societies.
That, of course, does not answer the question of whether the state should be underwriting access to the service or providing the service itself. He continues:
Secondly, there is a huge inequality of knowledge between the consumers of medicine and the suppliers, the doctors and hospitals.
His third argument is that the consequences of making a wrong decision in choosing a type of health care can be fatal. Finally, he says,
our lives and the lives of our families are so valuable, that our willingness to pay for even a small chance of survival knows no rational limit.
Mr. Kaletsky's conclusion is that the balance of market power is tilted so far in favour of the producers and against consumers that there is a strong case for a national health service. That is clearly where the balance of argument lies in our country today, so if we are to spend an enormous sum on the NHS, we have to find the best way of putting it into health care.
Historically, as societies have got wealthier, they have tended to spend an increasing proportion of their nation's wealth on health. The United States spends 14 per cent. of its wealth on health care and in EU countries the average is 9.1 per cent. Yesterday, the Prime Minister claimed that the Government will raise NHS expenditure to 7.6 per cent. of gross domestic product. Sadly, that is not the case. The Government's plans will take NHS expenditure up to only 6.5 per cent. of GDP; 1.1 per cent. of health expenditure is in the private sector.

1175
Labour Members need to appreciate that only the Conservative party can get to the EU average, because only the Conservatives have a commitment not only to spend the amount that Labour will spend on the NHS, but to find the mechanism to release money into the private sector through private health insurance and other schemes and to enlarge that sector.
Mr. Gardiner: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the only way that the Conservative party is likely to reach the European average is by cutting this country's GDP.
Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman made a facile stab at an intervention. This is a serious point. The Government are to spend only 6.5 per cent. of our GDP on health and are so hostile to private health insurance that the Prime Minister said:
A modernised health service, not private medical insurance, is the future.—[Official Report, 22 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 984.]
That means that the UK does not have a cat in hell's chance of beginning to approach the EU average of 9.1 per cent. of GDP. We must find mechanisms whereby we encourage private as well as public provision. That is the lesson that must be learned about the future of health.
In education, the arguments are different. If we could find the mechanism whereby individuals could make marginal decisions about how much money they want to pay for their children's education, we could release a vast amount of extra money into education. We are left with the irony that, if the state controls people's choices about health and education, less money will be spent on those services than would be spent if people were able to make those decisions for themselves, according to their circumstances.
There is a rather perverse argument about the future prosperity of our country, which is that, if the state can act to depress expenditure on health and education in that way, people will be better able to save their money and it can be reinvested in the productive parts of the economy, to generate wealth further down the line. Those are difficult arguments for any Government to balance.
The basic job of Government is to ensure the security of our country and its people. The Chancellor told us that there would be 2.5 per cent. growth in public expenditure. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment told us today that his budget has gone up by 8 per cent., which I presume is a real-terms figure, but he may want to correct that. Health spending is going up by 6.1 per cent. a year over the next five years. The Government are faced with crime and asylum issues, and sorting them out will require a great deal more money than has been allocated at present.
The Deputy Prime Minister will have to have more money for transport if he is serious about restoring the roads programme that the Government have decimated. Moreover, the Government must deal with issues such as social security. If they believe that they have abolished the business cycle, they will have a rude shock when it turns down. In this context, the difference between boom and bust—Labour's favourite expression—is pretty fine. If the economy starts to turn down, the Government's figures will look enormously bad in comparison with the position that they and the country apparently enjoy now.
1176
There is alarm and despondency at the Ministry of Defence. Defence is the one subject that has not been mentioned so far. It is clear that, if there is only a certain amount of growth in public expenditure and a huge amount has been devoted to other matters, defence will either receive no money or will pay for some of the extra spending. The Select Committee on Defence has said that the wheels on the strategic defence review are starting to wobble alarmingly.
In this uniquely benign era of peace and security for our citizens, the Government should remember that their first duty is defence. If the Government undermine the armed forces by failing to pay them properly, by failing to fund their equipment properly and by watching them descend into a spiral of decline as the good people leave and they become a demoralised body of soldiers, sailors and airmen, less capable of defending our country, their action will constitute a betrayal.
4.57 pm
Mr. Paul Goggins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). We may not share political views, but we share an office corridor. I have found from my contact with him that he has strong views, which he always expresses clearly. He may be interested to learn that, although he and my father may not agree on many political issues, they would at least agree on the way in which the centuries should be counted.
You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker—along with Members in all parts of the House—spent a very special couple of hours yesterday attending the installation of Cormac Murphy-O'Connor as the new Archbishop of Westminster. In his homily, he described going on holiday to the outer Hebrides and finding a memorial stone dedicated to "pilgrim Cormac". Carved on the stone were the words
He went beyond what was deemed possible.
I thought that the archbishop displayed characteristic good humour and humility, but I also reflected later on whether the Chancellor had drawn on the same Celtic spirit for his inspiration. He clearly went beyond what most commentators deemed possible.
Since Tuesday, most of the attention has rightly been focused on health. There is to be an extra £2 billion next year, and a 35 per cent. real-terms increase over the next four years. The agenda, as set out yesterday by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, is no longer about how much is spent on the NHS; it is about how we spend money on the NHS.
I want to deal with four issues. The first is education, which is a considerable beneficiary. It is vital to my constituency. The constituency contains Manchester airport, which is bringing many new jobs to the area. The main obstacle that remains in the path of many of my constituents is what the Secretary of State for Education and Employment described today as poverty of aspiration. The huge challenge of raising standards while extending horizons remains to be met.
The excellence in cities initiative is going down extremely well in my constituency and throughout the city of Manchester and today we heard how it will be built on. We have an education action zone in Wythenshawe, which puts an extra £1 million a year into local schools. However, it brings into play not only money, but new energy and new partnerships in the education of our

1177
young people. This week's announcement means that the six secondary schools, the four special schools and the 35 primary schools in my constituency—one of which was attended some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards—will collectively receive about £600,000 next year. By happy coincidence, a similar sum is going to schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw).
That money will go straight into local schools, but there has been some debate about whether it should have been routed through local education authorities. I thought that it would be a good idea to ring up the head teachers of some schools in my constituency to find out what they think. Let me share one or two of their observations with the House. The head teacher of a secondary school told me this morning:
This will let us buy books and equipment to enable youngsters to engage in quality learning. It is a boost to teachers' morale when they feel properly resourced.
The head teacher of a primary school said:
We will be using this money to help fund our new information technology block. It will go directly to support children in the classroom.
Finally, another secondary school head teacher said:
We will be able to strengthen the programme for disaffected and low-achieving pupils at key stage four. It will give a much-needed boost to the school's new library.
It is clear that the new cash is very valuable to head teachers and pupils in my constituency.
Mr. Graham Brady: In the spirit of further informing the debate, did the hon. Gentleman also ask the heads whether they favour all their school budget or only that part of it being sent direct to them rather than routed through the LEAs?
Mr. Goggins: The head teachers in my constituency value the partnership with the LEA and they certainly value the cash that they are receiving from the Government in the Budget.
My second point—on transport—may also interest the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced investment of up to £250 million in the metrolink tram system in Greater Manchester. That will have a huge impact across the county as existing routes from Bury to Altrincham, which cuts across the western side of my constituency, and out to Salford Quays and Eccles will be transformed. The new links will go out to Oldham, Rochdale and Ashton-under-Lyne and could be routed through to Stockport via Didsbury. That investment, particularly in the links to Manchester airport and the communities of Wythenshawe, will give a massive boost to my constituents.
In the Wythenshawe area of my constituency, 50 per cent. of households do not have access to a car, so metrolink will provide people with much better access to work and to leisure opportunities. Manchester airport is pledged to have 25 per cent. of its passengers and work force arriving and departing by public transport and it projects that 40 million passengers a year will pass through by 2015. Clearly the additional capacity provided by metrolink will be vital. Metrolink will revitalise Wythenshawe town centre as the trams will pass directly
1178
through it and provide access to Wythenshawe hospital, which has benefited from a £120 million modernisation investment from the Government. The hospital is not only local, but a regional centre of excellence. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, metrolink is good for the economy and good for the environment.
On my third point—on employment—Labour Members and, I hope, all hon. Members rejoice in the fact that there are 800,000 more people in work than before the general election. Unemployment has fallen by 30 per cent. generally and there has been a 70 per cent. fall in youth unemployment. Those are dramatic changes and the trends are reflected in my constituency.
We have seen the impact of the new deal. It is depressing that the Opposition Front-Bench team remains hostile to it, instead of rejoicing in the fact that young people who would otherwise have been on the dole and on the scrap heap are in productive employment. A total of 900 young people in my constituency have joined the new deal, 400 of whom are in employment. I rejoice in that fact.
None the less, unemployment remains a problem for many people. Barriers to moving back into work remain for many. The Chancellor acknowledged that in his pre-Budget statement, in which he issued a statement asking all of us—Members of Parliament, private sector organisations and local authorities—to find new ways in which to reconnect people who have been outside the work force for long periods to employment.
In that spirit, I recently brought together a group of people in my constituency—long-term unemployed people, representatives of agencies such as the Employment Service and several significant employers—at a conference to discuss what the obstacles were to the employment of long-term unemployed people and what proposals should be made to the Chancellor and to other Ministers to remove them. I have communicated them to the Chancellor. I should like to raise a number of the points and recommendations that arose from the conference; some of them are dealt with in the Budget.
The first recommendation was that there should be greater flexibility in managing the exit from benefits. One of the things that people often face when moving from benefits to work is debt. They do not have an immediate cash flow and feel almost worse off in work. We must find ways in which to bridge the gap.
Those people will be delighted at the announcement of the job grants. The cash boost of £100 for anyone who has been out of work for more than one year will give a little extra help at that important time. They will also be pleased at the announcement that the disregard on income support is to be lifted from £15 a week to £20.
The second recommendation was that the Government should introduce a 24-hour freephone advice line to provide people who are considering taking employment with immediate calculations to show what the net benefit would be of the working families tax credit and other payments with regard to national insurance and tax: a better-off calculation over the telephone. It has worked with NHS Direct. The idea could be well worth considering.
The third recommendation was that, as far as possible, the restriction on eligibility for training and job-finding support should be lifted. I was pleased that, during Education questions, the Under-Secretary of State for

1179
Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), reinforced the fact that the Government have a flexible approach to training. In the Budget, it was announced that the new deal would be extended next year to people over the age of 25, so that its benefits could be extended to other groups.
The fourth recommendation was that greater financial incentives should be given to employers to take people on. The idea was put forward of, for example, paid work trials and, based on the experience in Wythenshawe of using the European social funds, wage subsidies, which can give extra encouragement to employers to take people on and to take them off the dole.
As I say, some of those ideas have been reflected in this week's announcements. Ministers will assess the merits of those ideas, but the important thing to emphasise is that all the people at that meeting—agency staff, long-term unemployed people and local employers—shared the Chancellor's aspiration of full employment. What is more, they believed that it was achievable.
The fourth area that I want to cover is poverty and the Government action to tackle it. I must set the context. In 1997, one in four people in Britain lived in poverty. One in three children were born into poverty. Reputable studies at the time showed that, with the possible exception of New Zealand, the United Kingdom had become the most unequal society in the industrialised world. That is the starting point for the Government.
We know that enhancing employment opportunities is the Government's main tool for tackling poverty, and that that is the best way of boosting personal and family incomes. It has the additional beneficial effect of increasing tax revenues. If more people are off the dole and in work, more people are paying taxes, creating a virtuous circle. The fact is that 780,000 fewer people are dependent on income support now than in May 1997. As we heard in Tuesday's Budget statement, the amount spent on economic failure has decreased by £2 billion.
The Budget is not only about work. Extra help is also being targeted at specific groups, with families with children and pensioners as the obvious priorities. In a way, it is new Labour redistribution. It is not slicing or re-slicing a shrinking cake, but prioritising the poorest in the allocation of the extra resources emerging from a growing economy. That approach is certainly this Government's hallmark.
The practical consequences of the Government's approach are higher child benefit; the provision of working families tax credit to 4,000 families in my constituency; child care credit; and next year's introduction of the child tax credit, which will be worth £442 to each family. The main consequence is that 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty. Every hon. Member should rejoice in that.
It was also announced this week that the winter fuel allowance for pensioners will increase to £150, and that there will be increases in the minimum income guarantee. However, I am particularly delighted about the announcement of extra help for pensioners who currently just miss out on the type of special help being targeted at the very poorest pensioners. Capital limits for people claiming income support will be lifted. Those limits have not changed since 1988. Now, however, the lower limit
1180
will be doubled, from £3,000 to 6,000, and the upper limit will be raised to £12,000. That is tremendously good news for people who just fail to qualify for benefit because they have been prudent and saved a little money. It is a very welcome development.
The announcement on pensioner credits was another welcome development. They will be targeted at pensioners who are not in the poorest group of pensioners, but whose income does not exceed perhaps £100 per week for single pensioners, or £150 per week for pensioner couples. Although such people are above the minimum income guarantee level, they are by no means well off, and the credits will target extra help at them.
Those measures—in addition to free television licences for over 75s, extra winter fuel allowance and extra spending on the NHS, much of which will be enjoyed by older people—will ensure that pensioners benefit from improving living standards.
I shall leave the last word to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has produced, as it always does, a post-Budget analysis. The IFS is a very reputable organisation and produces very accurate analyses, and this is its conclusion on the Budget:
Before the 2000 Budget, the three previous Budgets produced cumulative gains of around 6 per cent. for the bottom two deciles … The measures announced by Gordon Brown in his recent budget speech amplify and accentuate this pattern. The poorest decile now gains by 9.2 per cent, or around £9 per week on average. The second decile gains by around 8 per cent. and the third and fourth deciles by around 5 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively … Overall then, new Labour has been a redistributing government.
Progress and justice was the slogan that won Labour the general election. In practice, it means policies being delivered that give practical solutions to millions of people who, until now, have been consigned to poverty. Those millions of people were cast aside by the Conservatives when they were in power, but they are a priority for this Government.
5.14 pm
Mr. Chris Pond: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I apologise for the fact that I may have to leave before the winding-up speeches, but I have been here since the beginning of the debate. I understand that the House considers that that practice should not be encouraged and I hope that Front-Bench spokesmen will recognise that it is an inevitability, not a discourtesy.
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins). I do not share a corridor with him, but I share the same views, especially his concern about poverty and inequality. I share neither a corridor nor the same views as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I was encouraged by the fact that he seems to have been persuaded by an article in The Times that there is a case for a national health service. We have a national health service and Labour Members intend to keep it.
The hon. Member for Reigate, like the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), suggested that the circumstances in which the Chancellor was able to deliver his Budget were the result of the golden legacy left by the previous Government. If that is a golden legacy, it is fool's gold. When we consider the circumstances that we inherited, especially the level of debt, it is somewhat rich for them to suggest that they are responsible for our current position.

1181
I want to concentrate on education aspects of the Budget and the speech made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I want to pay tribute to the schools in my constituency and all those who make up the partnership of the schools, including the staff, governors, parents and students. I am proud of their achievements in providing high standards of education, despite often having to operate in deprived sections of the community.
In her opening remarks, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said that we should set the schools free. I do not think that the schools in my constituency considered that they were set free by the previous Government when they were struggling with inadequate buildings, leaking roofs and outside toilets and without facilities such as computer equipment or books. Three primary schools in my constituency were on special measures, as was one secondary school, which has since closed.
The hon. Lady also suggested that grant-maintained status gave schools rather more independence than they might have in partnership with the local education authority. When the secondary school in my constituency was in severe difficulties, it found itself, as a grant-maintained school, with no visible means of support. It had slipped deeper and deeper into problems until it was forced to close.
There is still much to be done for the schools in my constituency, but the children now have the prospect of obtaining the quality of education that they deserve. In the past few days, one of the secondary schools in my constituency—Northfleet school for girls—was honoured at an event at No. 10 Downing street as the fifth most improved school in the country. It achieved that despite the fact that when it asked for extra classroom space, Conservative-controlled Kent county council sent along two aged portakabins with unsafe floors and leaking roofs. Meopham school in my constituency this week celebrated an excellent Ofsted report, which is not the result of anything done by the previous Government or Kent county council.
The Secretary of State talked about schools coming out of special measures. Recently, three primary schools in my constituency have lifted themselves out of special measures and they deserve tribute. They include Westcourt school, which is a fine primary school and Chantry school. When I first met the head teacher of Chantry school on taking over as Member of Parliament he proudly showed me his stock of books—I should say "book" since he had only one book in the school. He had leaking roofs and draughty windows. That school has been highlighted in The Times Educational Supplement as one of our finest, having come out of special measures.
In the past few weeks, Northcourt primary school has received a letter of congratulation and encouragement from the Prime Minister for coming out of special measures. Its latest Ofsted report praises it for the improvements in attendance and behaviour, for the progress that pupils are making in 95 per cent. of the lessons and for the fact that attendance rates have increased dramatically. The school is an important focus for a deprived local community, but Kent county council wants to close it. The community and I consider that to be an act of wilful vandalism. It is now up to the independent schools adjudicator to decide whether the proposal should go ahead.
1182
Those schools will welcome the announcement of the extra capital and revenue provided in the Budget. We have all been doing our sums and I reckon that schools in my constituency will be well over £500,000 better off. I hope that that matches the figures calculated by my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East.
Schools will also applaud the decision to pay the funds directly to them. In the past, although there has been a significant improvement in funding for schools, Kent county council seems to have found that some of the money has stuck to its fingers. The figures published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment show that last year Kent county council increased its spending on pupils by only 3.1 per cent.—half the average increase for England as a whole. Among county education authorities, only Hertfordshire increased its spending per pupil by less. Among all education authorities throughout the country, only the Tory boroughs of Bromley, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth spent less, along with Hackney council, whose education authority had been suspended. That is why schools in my constituency will very much welcome the fact that they will receive the funds allocated to them by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the need to ensure that children are not excluded without access to education. That is welcome, as is his statement that there is no intention to force schools to keep children whose disruptive behaviour may damage the educational prospects of others in the class. I fully support the policy of inclusion, particularly of special needs children. Too often, the special needs of children are not recognised and cannot therefore be properly addressed. In my constituency surgeries, I have met many parents who are at their wits' end, because they know that their children have special needs, but those needs are not recognised by the education authority.
That puts pressure on schools, which have to deal with those children without the extra resources that they need to ensure that their needs are catered for as well as the needs of other children in the school. At one school in my constituency, the special educational needs co-ordinator has found the pressure too great and has resigned. In another school, staff feel that they are struggling against impossible odds because of the behavioural difficulties of children. Another told me last week that pupils' disruptive behaviour is one of the biggest challenges facing schools.
In Gravesham we are fortunate to have Ifield school, which is a special school in every sense of the word. It has been praised by Ofsted and received a letter in the past few days from the chief inspector of schools congratulating it on its achievements and apologising for the fact that it had inadvertently been left out of the list of excellent special schools.
Ifield school has developed an initiative that I refer to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards. It tries to provide to all schools in the borough the additional support that they need to deal with children with special needs. That should be non-judgmental advice and guidance that will help inform teachers and individual schools to deal with some of the behavioural difficulties that are created by children

1183
with special needs. It may help them to cope and to ensure that other children in their schools also receive the attention that they deserve.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead argued that schools must have the right to exclude disruptive pupils. As a parent whose daughter was excluded from a nursery at the age of three, I do not share that view. However, I recognise that schools sometimes face real difficulties because of the behaviour of some children. We must recognise that difficulty and provide them with the support that they need to keep those children within the mainstream environment wherever possible.
The ability of schools to deal with children with special needs is inevitably diminished when they are operating on the edge of financial viability. The extra resources that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have announced will help schools to provide the education that all our children deserve, and I very much welcome it.
5.26 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am pleased also to follow, even if at one remove, my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins)—I am not that touchy about the small error made in the name of his constituency by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond).
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East seemed to be suggesting that the Chancellor's Budget was not really possible. I was wondering whether he would suggest that if it were not possible, perhaps it was all based on spin and unreality and that some discrepancies might emerge as it is unpicked. He promptly corrected that impression and returned to the loyal fold.
I support the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the investment in metrolink, which, as the Member for a constituency at one end of the existing line, I can wholeheartedly confirm is an excellent system. It demonstrates the advantages that good public transport systems can bring. It gets people out of their cars and on to the public transport network. In doing so, it has made an important contribution for my constituents and for others who have benefited from it already. As the hon. Gentleman said, it will be a great advantage having links to Manchester airport. From the point of view of my constituents, it will be important to have a link to Wythenshawe hospital, which currently has poor transport access links. It is good to see the Government building on the excellent start that was made by the previous Administration in the development of the metrolink.
Much has been said about the new deal. I know that some Labour Members think that the Opposition are churlish and that we do not accept the undoubted and unarguable benefits of the scheme. As a member of the Education and Employment Committee, I have taken a close interest in the new deal. I do not immediately discount the possibility that such schemes can bring benefits. However, there are some serious problems with the new deal—there are targeting problems, and there are certainly problems in evaluating the benefits that it is bringing and what benefits might have arisen regardless.
1184
The new deal appears to be an expensive scheme in terms of the cost per job created. I know that Labour Members do not accept the figure of £11,000 per job that we have suggested, but they are not always credible when they produce their own figures. Recently, we heard from a Minister that the new deal for lone parents seemed to be costing several thousand pounds per job created. It seems that that is not the only part of the new deal that entails costs of that order.
Few would dispute that the scheme carries with it also an element of dead weight. The fact is that many jobs are created anyway in the economy, and inevitably a percentage of those who are on the new deal would have found employment without the benefit of the scheme. Whether it is 50 per cent. or 40 per cent. is hard to evaluate, and that is one of the things that the independent studies attempt to assess.
What is clear is that the rate of decline of unemployment—especially youth unemployment, which was the particular target of the new deal—was greater before the introduction of the new deal than it has been since. The new deal may have brought benefits for some people, but it has done so at a great cost and it is hard to quantify who has benefited and who would have found employment in any case.
The Government persist in saying that the new deal is working well and repeatedly ask whether we would get rid of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made it clear that they will have to be patient to hear what we think. I am getting a little impatient to learn what they would do. Thankfully, it is looking less likely that the Labour party will form the next Government, but it is not clear what it would do with the new deal if it did. The Government say that it is an unalloyed success and has brought undoubted benefits, and they contest any suggestion that it is an expensive scheme that is not worth retaining, so would they retain it, and if so, how do they intend to fund it?
The Budget did not make it clear what the funding programme for the new deal would be, rolled out over a period of years. If the Government intend to maintain the new deal, do they plan to fund it through another windfall tax? Do they want to take another £5 billion from the utilities or, as they do not much like them at the moment, from the banks? Alternatively, will they look to raise £5 billion in taxes from other sections of the population? If they are asking us what our proposals are, it is time that they started to roll out in a little more detail what their long-term plan is for the new deal.
A lot has been said about health. As many Conservative Members have said, where there is new money for the national health service, we welcome it without question or reserve. In previous Budgets the Government have engaged in some creative accounting, and the figures announced for the money to be used for the benefit of patients have not always been accurate.
Certainly, when one starts to analyse the £2 billion increase for next year, it starts to look less generous than at first glance. We have to consider the fact that perhaps £1 billion of it will go to fund deficits, that £200 million will go to deal with unfunded pay awards and that £300 million is contingent on the possibility of an increase in revenue from tobacco duty.
That begs an enormous question, because the previous Government's policy, which this Government have continued, of increasing tobacco duty considerably above

1185
the rate of inflation, has not achieved the objectives that one would have expected. It has not increased the revenue coming into the Treasury in proportion to the increases in tax revenue.
The Financial Secretary looks puzzled, but the Red Book figures show that the outturn of revenue in 1998–99 was £8.2 billion, and the projected outturn in 2000–01 is £7.4 billion. The steady increase in tobacco duty is not leading to a steady increase in the Government revenue derived from it; yet £300 million of the money supposedly promised to the NHS is contingent on the premise that there will be a commensurate increase in revenue from tobacco.
That point was confirmed to me a couple of weeks ago in a written answer from the Secretary of State for Health. It was made clear that the NHS was using the figure of £250 million as a planning assumption, and that that was how much the Government expected to be available from that source. The Government also do not appear to have achieved a cut in the number of people smoking. It is counter-intuitive, but seems to be the result of the dramatic increase in the levels of smuggling of tobacco.
We welcome genuine increases in health service spending when they find their way to hospitals and patient care, but the Government's measures will have to be judged by the quality of the NHS's output, not just on global figures for expenditure. The public are becoming more sophisticated in their judgments on the NHS. They now look for genuine performance, not only at statements from the Government about how much money they claim to be spending on the NHS.
In the past year or two, the realisation has developed that the situation in the NHS has not just been bumping along the same as before but has been getting worse. That point was made, of course, by Lord Winston in the interview in the New Statesman, in which he said categorically that the health service was getting worse. I hope, as do Labour Members, that the funding that has been announced will reverse that. I do not want to see the NHS continuing to get worse and I do not want more of my constituents joining the 160,000 who have had to pay for private treatment. They have done so out of their own pockets—not from insurance, but from savings. That is one of the most tragic and shocking occurrences of recent years.
For political reasons, the Labour party likes to claim that we want to privatise the health service, but our constituents are encountering an inadequate NHS that is not able to meet the health needs of the public and is not improving and providing treatment faster. The NHS is making people wait longer. They may be waiting longer to see a consultant rather than waiting after seeing a consultant before they get treatment, but the waits are still unacceptably long. Some 160,000 people have now waited for so long that they have had to find the cash from their life savings to buy operations in the private sector. The Government should take that seriously and stop trying to suggest that there is some false political debate between the two sides of the House about belief in the NHS. We do believe in the NHS, but the Government's record is not one of which they can be proud.
I am sure that hon. Members would be surprised if, after I have spent so much time trying to bring to the attention of the public and the Commissioner for Public
1186
Appointments the Government's policy on NHS appointments, I did not mention that issue briefly. When the Prime Minister made his non-statement about the NHS to the House yesterday, in which he raised a few questions and offered no solutions, one thing that was clear from his remarks was that to achieve real improvements in the NHS, it would be necessary to have good leadership, good control and good delivery in the management of health authorities and trusts. That is something that the Commissioner for Public Appointments made clear in her report yesterday is happening in some cases, but not all. It is worrying when an independent body suggests in a report that people who are entrusted with the management of our national health service are not always appointed on merit. It is a cause of grave concern. The commissioner spoke of a "disconnection" between the role of an NHS board and the ability of its members, which raises serious questions and must be tackled.
Education is the principal theme of this part of the Budget debate. We have heard from the Secretary of State the figures for investment in schools. All hon. Members—whatever their party—welcome investment in their schools, but it is no good if money is given with one hand and taken away with the other. We have heard that primary schools will receive between £3,000 and £9,000 and secondary schools between £30,000 and £50,000.
What about the other side of the equation? What about grant-maintained schools, to which some hon. Members have referred? Nearly all the secondary schools in my constituency were grant-maintained, and in most that status was voted for by large majorities of the parents who were consulted. Schools in my constituency have lost £80,000 or £90,000 in revenue as a result of the loss of GM status. That was not what was promised during the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Yes it was.
Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman, who is a parliamentary private secretary I presume, suggests that I have misled the House. I have not. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, as it then was. I can assure him that Ministers were clear that they intended to raise revenue levels up to those being given to grant-maintained schools. They made it clear that there would be no reduction in funding for such schools.
There were excellent grant-maintained schools in my constituency. I have frequently referred to one of the best, the Ashton upon Mersey school, which has been described by the Secretary of State as a beacon school. It has lost between £80,000 and £90,000 from its budget as a result of the loss of grant-maintained status. It might be small beer compared with the loss suffered by the London Oratory school and I am pleased that schools in my constituency have not yet asked parents to contribute, but the picture is typical—grant-maintained schools have lost the freedom to control their budgets as well losing as a considerable amount of revenue, which has meant the loss of teachers, facilities and the ability to do some of the wonderful things that they were achieving.
As I was able to mention during Education and Employment questions this morning, a further counterbalance to any increased funds that the Government say they are providing for the secondary schools in my

1187
constituency is the fact that Trafford borough council, which is under Labour control, is not funding the change in the post-16 curriculum—some hon. Members have tried to suggest that Conservative councils are not passing money on to their schools.
The Department for Education and Employment made it clear to all local education authorities that the change would result in a £35 million cost throughout the country and that funding was provided in the standard spending assessment settlement, yet Trafford borough council has told its secondary schools that there will be no funding to help to cover the extra staff costs or the cost of books and new examinations. That is a significant burden on schools in my locality.
The joint committee of heads in the borough estimates the cost to be £400,000. It wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 7 March to express concern. I hope that it receives a prompt response—and a fuller response than that given by the Minister for School Standards to my question this morning. It is a grave concern for Trafford heads that they are being asked to implement a major change in the post-16 curriculum at the behest of the Government and yet they are being given no funds with which to do it.
Money is welcome, if it reaches the schools and increases pay for good teachers. It must not be countered by a loss of morale, of the sort that can arise when schools are reorganised.
The constituency of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East covers part of the borough of Trafford, and includes Sale grammar school. We are on different sides of the debate, as he has made clear on many occasions. However, he will agree that the unfortunate effect of uncertainty for schools, parents and children is that the education system is put in the balance. The confusion apparent in our education system is causing morale to be lost and the direction that should be focused on achieving continued excellent results to be neglected.
The Government have other proposals regarding selection in some of their own pet schemes, which include city academies and initiatives promoting excellence in cities and in schools. I hope that the Government will give up their ideological view that selection in schools is always wrong, but they must make up their mind.
It is not acceptable for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to say on one day that selection is completely wrong, only to claim on the next that he was only joking, that the Government have a different attitude and are not out to get grammar schools. Then, when the House of Lords amends legislative proposals, it was made clear that the Government would steamroller that decision and ensure that they got their own way.
The Government are all over the place with regard to selection in schools. A clear policy is needed, and I hope that it is one of the mature policies that the Secretary of State occasionally puts forward. He should recognise that some selection, in some circumstances, can be a good thing and can achieve good outcomes. However, we have not arrived at that stage yet. It would be a great tragedy if some of this country's excellent grammar schools and high schools were to be lost in the period between the
1188
Government abandoning their ideological obsession with abolishing selection and adopting the more enlightened view that selection is not always a bad thing.
I turn now to regional policy. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) is on the Government Front Bench. As a Whip, he cannot contribute to the debate, and that must be frustrating. In a spirit of good will, I shall tell the House that he has done much to fight for the retention of the synchrotron at Daresbury.
There is great concern in the north-west, among all local Members of Parliament and our constituents, that the Government have decided to invest in Oxford rather than in our area. The decision represents a massive loss to the economy of the north-west, as more than £500 million is involved. It has enormous implications for the scientific community in the area, and could be called a regional policy in reverse. It is a very negative outcome for people in the north-west.
The Government's policies in other respects are not in keeping with the broader regional agenda. An important example is the climate change levy, whose effect on manufacturing industry will be greater than on other sectors of the economy. The Government say that the levy has no net revenue implication, and I see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is nodding his agreement. There may be no net revenue implication for the Government, but there is for the people who pay the levy, regardless of whether they are in the manufacturing, agriculture or horticulture sectors.
The Budget contained some specific proposals regarding energy efficiency schemes, but it is absurd to apply the climate change levy to agriculture or horticulture, as those sectors, far from emitting damaging greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, actually remove them. To hit a sector of the economy that has a beneficial effect on climate change is absurd. I am disappointed that, having recognised the argument in respect of giving energy efficiency grants, the Government have not understood that there is no justification, in environmental terms, for taxing those sectors.
The climate change levy will have a negative effect on the north and the midlands. The cuts in employers' national insurance contributions, which are supposed to compensate for it, will have a disproportionate benefit for the service sector—more likely in the south than the north.
The overall effect of the Budget remains to be seen. It is encouraging that the press and other media have given it a more thorough assessment, and more quickly, than previous Budgets produced by this Government have received. There has been a more sceptical approach, and this Budget has been dissected a little more thoroughly, and there has been a greater readiness to look beyond the rhetoric and the headlines to understand what the real, detailed effect will be.
The overall effect, which the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East was happy to acknowledge and to trumpet in his speech, is that of a redistributive Budget that increases taxes. Labour Members may be happy with that; Conservative Members may be less happy. However, this tax-increasing Budget will prove acceptable to the British people only if those increased taxes are matched by increased delivery of services. So far, if we look at the Government's record, that has not been the case.

1189
So far, a typical working family has paid some £600 a year more under this Government. Next year they will lose the married couple's allowance and mortgage-interest relief at source. The rate of savings is going down dramatically, which will have a serious long-term effect on the economy. We have not, however, seen a balancing improvement in the quality of services. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the health service.
I conclude with a challenge to the Government. They have produced their Budget, setting out their strategy, in what is probably the last full year before an election. What is crucial is delivery of services. It has not happened yet—the public are waiting.
5.53 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: The Budget Red Book has the title "Prudent for a Purpose". That raises two obvious questions. How have the Government been prudent, and what is the purpose?
We have been prudent in putting in place a new framework for our economy—or, rather, three new frameworks. We have a new monetary framework in which to deliver our low inflation target of 2.5 per cent. We did that principally by giving the Bank of England responsibility for setting interest rates in line with the target set by the Government. We have put in place a new fiscal framework that regains control of public finances by adhering to two strict fiscal rules. There is the golden rule that over the economic cycle we borrow only for investment and not for consumption, and the sustainable investment rule that net public debt as a proportion of gross domestic product should be held at a stable and prudent level.
Labour inherited a £28 billion borrowing requirement when it came to power in 1997, with the national debt running at 44 per cent. of GDP. This year, the national debt will be just 37.1 per cent. of GDP. and by the end of 2001–02, that figure will represent almost exactly one third of GDP, at just 33.6 per cent. We have already paid off £30 billion of the debts of failure that we inherited, and this year we will make a debt repayment of £12 billion.
The third new framework is the one that we have set for public spending. We have moved to three-year spending plans to provide, through the comprehensive spending review, a basis for long-term planning in the economy to give the certainty that business needs for investment.
Last night, when I was driving home in my car on the A40, I had a frightening experience. I heard the voice of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) delivering his shadow Chancellor's Budget message on the radio. Among many of the inaccurate things of which he accused the Government, he talked of their muddled spending. We have done more to pay back the debt that this country built up as a result of his muddled spending than his Government ever repaid. Today's Labour surpluses are paying back yesterday's Tory debt.
So, yes we have been prudent, to answer my first question. What about the purpose? In this Budget, the purpose is the same as it has always been. The newspapers label Budgets. They have labelled this one the NHS Budget. The Budget last year was for working families. The one before was about the new deal for the
1190
unemployed. Nonsense. All Labour's Budgets have had the same objective. This one is no different. That objective is to achieve high and stable levels of both economic growth and employment. Only if we have a stable economy do we have the basis for long-term success. Only if we have economic growth do we have the resources to achieve all the other aims of the Government of creating a fairer society with real economic opportunity across the board for all—a better society with the public services to which a modern country should aspire.
Education occupies a unique position in the relationship between wealth creation and public service expenditure. It is a key public sector recipient of Government spending. Critically, it is also the very engine of wealth creation that provides revenue to the Exchequer in the first place. It is because the Government have always recognised the interdependence of education and economic growth that so much has already been achieved in our schools. It is also why the Government's aspirations for our children are so far from being exhausted.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement that we are now spending for the first time more than 5 per cent. of our gross domestic product on education is one that every hon. Member should applaud. They should applaud it as teachers, heads and parents applauded up and down the country when the extra £3,000 to £9,000 for all primary schools and £30,000 to £50,000 for all secondary schools was announced on Tuesday. May I tell my right hon. Friend what that shot in the arm will mean for just one school in my constituency of Brent, North?
Wembley high school was the only secondary school in Brent, North to remain with the LEA when all the others went to grant-maintained status. Much was said earlier by the shadow Education Secretary about grant-maintained schools and grammar schools. It seemed to me that we were replaying the arguments of yesteryear. The Tories are obsessed with the structure of schools when that argument has moved on. The argument is about standards—how to raise the educational achievement of all children in all schools.
Wembley high school was the only secondary school in Brent, North to remain with the LEA. Because of the disparities in funding, introduced by the then Conservative Government, the school found itself with growing deficits as neighbouring schools accumulated substantial surpluses. Wembley high faced the coming financial year with a dynamic new head teacher and a dedicated teaching staff, to whom I pay tribute; and a deficit of £400,000 and a recovery programme.
The extra money for schools announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Tuesday will make the most enormous difference to that school. It will enable the school to wipe out a large chunk of that deficit—if it chooses to do so—and to take on an extra teacher, because the school has struggled to maintain its staffing level.
I welcome the excellence in cities programmes and their extension to my borough. New initiatives such as those—creating learning support units and mentoring schemes—will complement the splendid work already undertaken by Brent education authority in matters such as pupil exclusions. The additional £33 million for excellence in cities announced by my right hon. Friend

1191
the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is one of the most effective ways of tackling social exclusion; I am delighted to support it.
On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did not link only education and economic growth; he linked support for children and the family with a healthy, productive society. He said:
A sure start for all Britain's children is not only right but it is the best anti-crime, the best anti-drugs, the best anti-unemployment and the best anti-dependency policy for this country's future.—[Official Report, 21 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 865.]
That is what the Conservatives fail to understand. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) displayed that lack of understanding when he insisted that the Government should cut the social security budget, as he claimed they had promised to do. He sees the increase in maternity grant from £200 to £300 as a 50 per cent. increase in unnecessary spending. He sees the massive 40 per cent. increase in child benefit since 1997 as a failure. The Labour Government see it as an investment in our children and in the future of our nation.
The Budget will make a low-paid, two-child family, earning £10,000, better off by £2,700 a year under Labour than they were under the Tories. To Conservative Members, that 27 per cent. rise in family income is reckless spending, but to Labour Members, that is exactly what the phrase "Opportunity for the many and not the few" is all about.
The Government did not promise to cut the social security budget; they promised to cut the cost of social and economic failure. Our measures have created 800,000 new jobs. They have reduced unemployment to its lowest level for 20 years. That is the way to cut the cost of failure—not by keeping four in every 10 children living in poverty, as they were when the Government came into office.
Social security spending is right and proper when it gives a guaranteed minimum income to pensioners and when it gives pensioner households an extra £150 with which to face their winter fuel bills. It is right and proper when it rewards families for going out to work, rather than sitting idly at home on benefit.
Social security spending is part of a decent, caring society—a society that cares for the old, the sick and the vulnerable. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Government are proud of the increased provision that they have made for those groups, but they are equally determined that social security spending should not be a soft touch for the idle or a pacifier for those who are there as a product of economic failure.
The real question about social security spending is not whether it is rising or falling; it is why it rose by 4 per cent. a year under the Conservative Government and is rising by only 1 per cent. under Labour. The real question is whether we are spending rightly on protecting those in our society who need it, or wrongly on paying the cost of economic failure and for millions of people unemployed and on the dole.
This morning, I held a Budget breakfast for businesses in my constituency. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was able to come to speak to the business community there. I was delighted to organise the event with a well known firm of
1192
accountants, BDO Stoy Hayward. I confess that I was somewhat less delighted when the first speaker rose to say, "As an accountant, I do not vote Labour." However, he won me back when he said, "But, as an accountant, I judge people on their results and I have to say that young unemployed people are now going back into work under this Government." That is what we mean by cutting the cost of economic failure.
I want to discuss some of the Budget's specific measures for business. The hon. Member for Reigate—and codswallop—(Mr. Blunt) called the Budget an accountant's dream in its complexity. That was certainly not the view of my Tory accountant friend from BDO Stoy Hayward this morning. His words about the capital gains tax provision—I think that I quote him exactly—were, "I know this may put me out of a job, but there are fantastic privileges for business asset ownership here. This is going to change your lives, guys."
Instead of a complex system of tapers over 10 years going down to 20 per cent., my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has cut capital gains tax to just 10 per cent. after four years—the lowest rate in the developed world and even below that of the United States of America. That is more than a radical simplification of the tax, it is a dramatic fillip to business investment. It is likely to bring massive liquidity into the business transfer market. Critically, it is also likely to have a saving effect on the businesses of many farmers for whom the tax impact of selling their businesses will now be halved.
The making permanent of the 40 per cent. rate for capital allowances was welcomed by many businesses. However, I am aware of at least one business that was incensed by the 100 per cent. capital allowance for information technology equipment. That business went out and purchased its new IT equipment yesterday on the strength of Tuesday's Budget. I remind hon. Members and other businesses that the 100 per cent. allowance comes into effect only after 5 April this year.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his Treasury team colleagues have listened carefully to business representatives. I cite as an example the enterprise investment scheme, which was limited to qualifying trades and excluded those where income came in royalties. That therefore excluded software companies whose incomes come substantially from licensing deals. Under the new provisions in the Budget, such companies will now qualify for scheme relief, providing a real boost for the IT sector.
Another example of how my colleagues on the Government Front Bench have listened to business has been the change to the regulations governing group relief. A non-resident parent company with two subsidiary companies in the UK was previously unable to obtain group relief where one subsidiary made a loss and the other a profit. Now, such an offset can be made and assets transferred within companies without any gain arising. Those are not the marks of complication, as alleged on the Opposition Benches, but simple changes that will simply make Britain a more attractive place to do business.
I recall the story of the man who went to his bank manager in the early 1990s under the Conservative Government. He asked what he needed to do to set up a small business. His bank manager advised him to buy a large one and wait. Under Labour, and with this Budget, small businesses are growing organically into large ones.

1193
I come to the billing that the media have given the Budget: the NHS Budget. Of course, like all hon. Members, I have pressing constituency needs in health care. My local hospital, Northwick Park, witnesses unacceptable queues at its accident and emergency department. The Government have just given £800,000 of capital investment for the refurbishment of that department, but even when that building work is completed and five new cubicles have been arranged, it still will not be good enough.
There are managerial and structural problems in that hospital. There are problems about the provision of beds beyond casualty, which are two floors above—not on the same level, not easily accessible. The blocking that therefore occurs must be taken care of by different managerial and structural arrangements—by modernisation not simply of the hospital's fabric but of the processes and protocols in it.
Although I welcome the 6.1 per cent. a year increased spending on the NHS up to 2004—double what it was during the Conservative years—and the £2 billion that is being put in this year, I welcome far more the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, in which he linked that investment with the process of modernisation that will bring best practice to all NHS hospitals.
The past few weeks have been dogged by sterile political debate of whether the burden of tax in this country is rising or falling. It has not centred on whether living standards are rising or falling, but that is what is most important to people. Living standards, particularly for those who have suffered so long from the polarisation of wealth and poverty over the past 20 years, are inexorably rising under this Government. Indeed, we have heard that Institute of Fiscal Studies figures show that living standards and the income of those in the poorest decile have risen by almost 10 per cent.
The focus of the Budget, and what the debate should be around, is not whether we are paying more or less tax but what we are spending that tax on. Are we spending it on a society that is becoming increasingly divided, and in which the costs of unemployment and failure are rising, or on caring for the people who need care in our community and on making sure that the engine of education and investment in the economy is providing the sustained long-term growth that we need?
6.15 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: This is the third day of the Budget debates, and already a number of unexpected and unannounced nasties are emerging from the Budget and the Red Book. I shall refer to those in due course.
The overall picture that has emerged from this and previous debates is that the Government use the rhetoric of modernisation, but in practice they have a huge, growing sum that they recycle through the state. That is best illustrated by the enduring fact that, whatever the temporary balance between taxation and expenditure, and whatever the temporary surplus or deficit, those two giant pillars of public expenditure and taxation are getting ever higher. In the coming year, the Government will break the £1 billion-a-day public expenditure barrier with no comparable improvement in efficiency.
1194
We would argue that this entire churning mechanism, whereby ever greater sums are taken from taxpayers, filtered through the state and given back to people in benefits, allowances, reliefs and services, is itself a cause of inefficiency. Instead of people making choices and judgments about their expenditure patterns and preferences, the state makes those choices for them. That is building up into a national overhead, not only on businesses, which have to grapple with the increased complexity of the tax and benefits systems, but on everyone who is ensnared by the tax system through work or the benefits system.
All of that is well demonstrated by the short history of the working families tax credit, which was the flagship benefit or tax credit to which the Government first referred. I am afraid that the Red Book, which the Chancellor published on Tuesday, continues the by now familiar fiddle of treating the working families tax credit not as an item of public expenditure but as a tax cut. That is how it is laid out in all the tables in the body of the Red Book, even though at the back, in the small print, it is explicitly referred to as an item of public expenditure.
Page 220 refers to
income tax credits which score as public expenditure under national accounting conventions.
That could hardly be clearer. The treatment of the working families tax credit in all the Chancellor's pronouncements and in the rest of the Red Book completely conflicts with that. It is laid out as a tax cut, most noticeably in table C7 on page 200. The reason that the Government have done that is not hard to divine: they are trying to show that they have not raised taxes.
Even if one does not include the working families tax credit, it is clear from that table that the burden of taxation has gone up. It was 35.3 per cent. when the Government took office in 1997—that figure comes from another table in the Red Book—and in the coming year it will rise to 36.9 per cent. As I said, if we add another 0.5 per cent. for the working families tax credit, in line with the Government's convention, we arrive at an even higher figure. It amounts to the equivalent of an extra 8p in the pound on the rate of income tax.
The story of the working families tax credit does not stop there. However justified its aims may be, the fact remains that it is creating a fearsome complexity in the zone of interaction between low incomes, the benefit system and taxation. The overall system is becoming incomprehensible. Perhaps that is why the working families tax credit is to be scrapped. After a short three-year life, it is to be no more. It will be replaced, we are told, by some other system of tax credit, as yet not fully defined. This shows that the Government have got themselves into an almighty muddle.
The Government started out with the view that taxation was not just a matter of raising revenue; it influenced behaviour. We agree with that. At least, we agree with the part of the Labour manifesto for the last general election, which stated:
Taxation is not neutral in the way it raises revenue. How and what governments tax sends clear signals about the economic activities they believe should be encouraged or discouraged.
I agree with that. I also believe that taxation can have damaging social consequences, and the Government must believe that as well. In the past fortnight, they have spoken of the importance of marriage. That has arisen

1195
from the fiasco of their attempt to abolish section 28, which has at least forced them to recognise that marriage has a social value. Why, then, are they persisting in the abolition of the married couples allowance, which sends exactly the opposite signal?
Let us take another example: criminality. We all want to suppress or reduce criminal activity, but why are the Government pushing excise duties to breaking point? My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) mentioned tobacco. Tobacco smuggling has become something of an epidemic. The Government are doing nothing to suppress the smoking habit—the number of young people taking up smoking is rising—and the revenue is also being hit. The yield from tobacco duty in the current year is substantially lower than last year's yield. The Government's action is not only inducing criminal behaviour—smuggling, and gangs crossing the channel—but causing tobacco and cigarettes to be sold to young people and others in uncontrolled outlets and, moreover, hitting the public revenue. These are the economics of the madhouse.
The Government came to office promising to be tough not just on crime, but on the causes of crime. One of the causes of smuggling is the large and growing differential, in a single market, between our home taxation system and that on the continent. Rather than dealing with that cause of crime, the Government are making it worse by widening the duty differential.
Mr. Blunt: According to a report that I have seen, the Government propose to spend £209 million on anti-smuggling measures. If the increase in tobacco duty works, it will yield only £300 million.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes an additional point to bolster my argument and I am grateful to him. All the extra civil servants and customs officers in the world will not prevent smuggling when it is so clearly advantageous to buy cigarettes at £2 a packet less on the continent and resell them in this country illegally. That is a serious and growing criminal activity. Ministers recognise that in parts of their speeches, but do nothing to tackle the root cause.
The uprating of fuel duties is a mystery. The Chancellor said in his Budget speech that he would increase the duties on diesel and petrol in line with inflation, but now that we have had a chance to examine the Budget documents it seems that they are going up by about 3.2 per cent. Inflation is not 3.2 per cent. The mystery deepens when we notice that the inflation-based increase in personal allowances is only 1.2 per cent. When it suits the Government to have a nice low uprating of personal allowances, they use an inflation figure of 1.2 per cent., but when uprating benefits the Revenue they use 3.2 per cent. We have discovered a new stealth tax and it took us only two days to find this one.
Plenty more stealth taxes are still being discovered, but the House of Commons Library has done a quick estimate. It believes that the extra revenue from that over-indexing of fuel duties will net the Treasury £472 million a year. That is practically the definition of a stealth tax. The Chancellor asserted in terms that those duties would rise only with inflation, but, to the enormous benefit of the Exchequer, they are increasing by far more than that.
1196
My other points about the damaging effect of taxation settle on savings. The significance of the savings habit was well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who pointed out the importance of a vigorous savings culture to funding the necessary investment and encouraging desirable social ends. We cannot responsibly kick people off welfare and withdraw their benefits unless we encourage them to save and make saving attractive to them, but everything that the Government have done has undermined that. They have abolished personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts and have hit pensions with a continuing extra tax burden of £5 billion a year. What message does that send to the public? It says, "Don't save. The Government will always let you down."
The Government have also skewed the income tax system away from saving, particularly by low-income groups. That is not theory—it has had an effect already. The savings ratio is down from more than 10 per cent. when we left office to 5.5 per cent., which is lower than predicted in the 1999 Budget. The savings ratio is collapsing under the Government and that will have serious social and economic consequences.
Leaving that aside, I want briefly to explore the tax relationship between business and the Government. It is beyond dispute that the tax burden on business has gone up. That is clearly laid out in the Budget arithmetic—they are at it again. Stamp duty has gone up. The Government pretend that it is all paid by people with large houses, but that is completely untrue. Most is paid by the commercial sector. It is a straight business tax.
It is also a tax against mobility and flexibility. When the Prime Minister—or even the Chancellor—dilates on the subject of the British economy, he likes to pretend that we are following the American model of wage and price flexibility, adaptability and enterprise, but everything he does converges not on that economy, but on the European Union economy. He talks about the Anglo-Saxon model, but his actions are all European. Again, it will have severe consequences for the competitiveness of the British economy.
Not just traditional industry, but the service sector will suffer from another omission. The Government have failed to do anything about the stamp duty on shares and we are now way out of line with other tax jurisdictions. We have the highest stamp duty, or equivalent, of any G7 country. Increasingly, transactions and deals will take place not in the City, but in Germany, where there is no stamp duty on share dealings.
Mr. Gardiner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the technique of avoiding stamp duty on shares? On the purchase of shares, the stamp duty is only 0.5 per cent., but it can be on a very substantial price; he properly makes that point. However, consideration takes the form of convertible debt with a low face value, and the duty is charged on the face value. The debt converts to shares at full value after, say, one year and there is then no duty. That was the standard technique for the avoidance of stamp duty on shares. From Royal Assent, that will be stopped. Does he not applaud that?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The situation is even worse. That tax is being avoided, too. The Government are ignoring the big avoidance: the moving of transactions

1197
overseas altogether. They are attempting to stop a comparatively minor avoidance scheme, while ignoring the overall point: the measure will undermine the City of London as a place where those deals can take place.
The Government are fond of talking about the need for a partnership with industry. The quarrying industry is important in my constituency. It thought that it had reached a partnership deal with the Government over higher environmental standards. It discussed those with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and came up with an imaginative and far-reaching package on the extractive industries, after-care of sites, the transport of stone and other aggregates. However, at the last minute, the Treasury stepped in, completely sabotaged the discussions and is about to impose a new tax: the aggregates tax, a blunt instrument, which will make no differentiation between extractors and quarrying companies that are good and responsible, and those that are not. That is another clear instance of the Government instinct to tax, rather than to engage in thoughtful discussion with an industry that genuinely wishes to raise the environmental gain.
That sends a bad message to other industries that the Government have in their sights. The Red Book describes the possibility of not going ahead with the pesticides tax. It says that, instead, the Government want to reach a voluntary agreement with that business sector. Based on the experience of the quarrying industry, I seriously advise the sector not to bother. If it does discuss those matters with the Government, particularly a Department outside the Treasury, there is no assurance whatever that the Chancellor will not step in at the last minute and simply tax in order to spend.
One issue has been raised several times in the debate: the rules governing controlled foreign companies and the system of double taxation relief. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) made a truly outstanding speech. He demanded to know, among other things, exactly where the Government stood on their revenue forecast from that supposed tax reform. The Government have, in summary, been found out on this one.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a news release from PricewaterhouseCoopers, which shows that the Government's estimate of an extra yield of £300 million a year from those two reforms is a grotesque underestimate. I trained at PricewaterhouseCoopers, so I must declare that interest, but I had absolutely nothing to do with its comment on this issue.
I was quite interested that the only excuse that the Inland Revenue could come up with was to suppose that the difference between the Revenue's estimates and those of PricewaterhouseCoopers was accounted for by what the Revenue called "behavioural changes". What that means is that the Government are relying on the fact that those companies will not lose quite so much money, because they will simply leave—they will not be here at all.
Therefore, in future, perhaps companies such as Rio Tinto or—a better example—the new companies from South Africa that have set up in the United Kingdom with London as a headquarters will not lose too much revenue from the measures, because they will not be in London at all. Is that really what the Government mean by a
1198
partnership with industry? Is that really what they mean by trying to encourage the competitiveness of British industry?
PricewaterhouseCoopers is not the only company to have come up with alternative figures. Deloitte and Touche—another very well-known and very large accountancy firm—has calculated that the two changes, but particularly the one affecting double taxation relief, will cost well over £1 billion, rather than the £1 million claimed by the Government. Deloitte and Touche released that information today. Its specialist corporate tax partner, Mr. Stephen Charge, is quoted as saying:
Contrary to government estimates, the abolition of dividend mixing will cost business well over a billion pounds a year. At a time when European competitors such as Spain and Germany are reforming their tax systems to attract commerce, the UK is set to become a much less favourable location for international business.
The point is that those companies are not seeking a privilege. All they are seeking is to be taxed on the same basis that they would be if they were based on the continent or in the United States. Those other countries do not have the concept of taxation by source. In other words, multinational companies based in America are already able to mix their sources of revenue, and to be taxed accordingly, without the need to establish those so-called offshore mixing companies.
Therefore, by signalling their abolition of that taxation planning route, the Government have disadvantaged companies in the United Kingdom as against what they experience in those other tax jurisdictions. It is a very clear signal to multi-national companies: "Do not bother to locate in the United Kingdom. If you do, the Government will kick you in the teeth."
There have been many references in the debate to the extra £1 billion being provided next year for education and to the larger sums that have been announced for the national health service. Yesterday, we had an admission from the Prime Minister that the money spent so far has been largely wasted. The £21 billion that was announced in 1998, which also was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, has not led to any necessary improvements, but has largely been wasted. The Prime Minister had no answer to the question of how those improvements are to be made.
In announcing those extra measures in a Budget statement, the Chancellor has breached his previous assurances that all that should be done in the comprehensive spending review. In last year's Red Book, he pointed out that there would be no short-term planning of public expenditure, but that it would all be done
subject to firm multi-year limits covering a three-year period.
Instead of that, for purely political reasons, he has released some sums of money with none of the supposed disciplines and constraints of the comprehensive spending review. That is why the failure to deliver, which has been such a marked feature of the first half of this Parliament, will continue into the second half.
6.40 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out for the country the next step on the road to a stronger and fairer Britain. Building on the platform of stability that we have been creating over the past three years, he explained how we are able to meet

1199
our rules of fiscal prudence—locking in the fiscal tightening over the next two years to an even greater extent than projected in the previous Budget—while at the same time, releasing significant new investment for the nation's priorities, which include boosting jobs and enterprise, improving services, tackling child poverty and helping pensioners.
The problem for Opposition Members—it has been evident in this interesting debate—is that they know that the economy is being immeasurably better managed today than at any time under the previous Government. I am talking not about the last five years of Tory Government—there would be no dispute about the fact that the economy was badly managed then—but about any time during their 18 years in office.
After the election, our first economic objective was to achieve a new stability after the decades of boom and bust. The Budget speech confirmed how, in a remarkable way, that has been achieved. We are delivering a platform of stability and steady growth. We have low inflation and public finances are under control. That is how the Chancellor intends it to stay.
Inflation in Britain today has been lower for longer than at any time for over 30 years. It is now the lowest of any member state in the European Union. For the first time, after many years of weak investment which left us lagging behind, Britain is now investing a bigger share of our national wealth than any other major EU competitor and more than the United States. More people are now in work than ever before in our history. That factor was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra). The rate of unemployment is at its lowest for 20 years and 1 million vacancies are on offer across the United Kingdom's regions.
I want to draw the House's attention to just one immensely significant change resulting from the success of the new deal—it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins). Youth unemployment has fallen by 70 per cent. since the election. The number of young people now unemployed for more than six months is lower than at any time since the middle of the 1970s and at any time under the previous Government. I ask the House to reflect on the incalculable gains that we will see from that one huge change since the election. It is a gain for young people, but it is a huge gain for our entire society. We are all affected by what happens to those around us, especially our young people. There is such a thing as society and gains today mean incalculable gains for years to come.
The young people of this generation have been given a chance. They have not been abandoned on the scrap heap like far too many youngsters over the past 20 years. Young people are used to getting up in the morning and developing the habits and confidence that come from working. They are able to look forward to a lifetime of independence and being able to support themselves and their families. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said, they are enjoying an optimism that will be passed through the generations.
1200
That is what has been achieved through the new deal and, with the Budget, we are extending that approach and recognising people's rights and responsibilities. We are extending that approach to older people, lone parents and those who have been written off in the past.
A few weeks ago, launching his pre-Budget tour, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor visited my borough of Newham in east London. He met many of the people who have benefited from the new deal. He had the sorts of discussions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) referred earlier. Some radio journalists were trying to persuade some of those youngsters to complain about some aspect of the new deal, but they replied:
All we can say is that it has worked for us.
It has worked for them and for nearly 200,000 other young people across the country.
These are seismic changes, beyond the wildest dreams of the Tory years. We are determined to lock them in for good and to reap the benefits for the long term. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said, our prudence has been for a purpose. That purpose was at the heart of the Budget and on Tuesday we took the next steps towards our four ambitions set for the coming decade: our prosperity ambition, to bridge the productivity gap with our competitors; our full employment ambition, to achieve employment opportunity for all and the highest rate of employment that we have ever had; our education ambition, to get half our youngsters going on to university by 2010; and our anti-poverty ambition, to halve the number of children living in poverty within 10 years, on the way to meeting the Prime Minister's target of eradicating child poverty within 20 years. Those four ambitions encapsulate our commitment to a modern and decent Britain in which opportunity and security are not just for a few, but for all.
I shall to respond to a number of points that have been made in this interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) made a particularly interesting speech. He welcomed the substantial boost for the health service. He appealed for more sensible Tories to engage with the process of planning for how what he described as the wall of cash will be used. We have not had too much encouragement that his appeal will get a positive response from the Conservatives, but who know? There were not many Conservative Members present today and there may be others who will respond more positively.
My hon. Friend rightly welcomed the changes for charities. They are a big step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) intervened on him to point out the particular opportunities for universities. I know that universities are alive to those opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South rightly argued that there is more to be done for manufacturing. As he knows, I very much agree with him on the potential for the commercialisation of research ideas in our universities. I have visited Warwick university, with which he is familiar, and a number of others in recent months. We are making progress in encouraging commercialisation to get new ideas into business and made them successful, creating new jobs and new enterprise.

1201
My hon. Friend also called for more investment in infrastructure. As a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcements, net public investment will more than double over the period 1997 to 2003–04 from 0.7 to 1.8 per cent. of gross domestic product. That will create the infrastructure for which my hon. Friend rightly called. There is an additional £1 billion of capital spending within departmental expenditure limits for the coming financial year.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) generously and rightly welcomed the additional education spending. He was also right to point to the massive bureaucracy that would be required to support the Conservative idea of a centralised body to direct all funding to schools. He also criticised what he described as the centralisation involved in establishing the learning and skills councils. I do not agree with him on that. There will be 47 learning and skills councils and a lot of local discretion will be available to them. Local people will rightly take decisions in the light of local circumstances.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham), because I was not here when she addressed the House, but I know that she gave a well-informed and thoughtful speech. She has a long-standing interest in the problems of age discrimination and has repeatedly pressed the Government to do more about it. She was right to welcome the new deal for the over-50s and the improvements that we are making.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) appeared to be unaware that the 10p starting rate of tax had been extended to savers. He complained that e-commerce appeared to be the only form of enterprise on the table. That is not the case. It was evident from the business breakfast to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North referred that it is recognised that the massive, ambitious and fundamental changes in the Budget to capital gains tax, the permanent capital allowances and research and development tax credit will be available to businesses across the board. They will extend to manufacturing firms and other businesses of all sorts. That is why those proposals are welcomed, especially by growing businesses.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe), who is a fair man, rightly welcomed a number of features in the Budget. I was pleased to hear him refer to the new arrangements for graduated vehicle excise duty. I am glad that he is pleased about the proposals. They will bring about a good change for the environment. Under the new arrangements, 95 per cent. of new cars will attract a lower vehicle excise duty than they would under the existing system.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen to the ring-fenced transport fund, given that there has been an inflation rise only in fuel duty. The £280 million fund is being provided for transport improvement. Under the normal arrangements, there will be an element for Northern Ireland. I think that the House will agree that the sooner that we have again a Government in Northern Ireland who will be able to make decisions about allocating funding in Northern Ireland, the better. All of us hope that that will happen soon.
1202
I was glad also that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the five-year exemption from the climate change levy for gas supplies in Northern Ireland, to encourage the development of that new business. I am grateful to him for many of his remarks.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made an interesting speech. He argued that, when there is a downturn, we need to start borrowing to pay social security bills rather than doing anything with tax. That reflects the previous Government's thinking. It explains clearly why we ended up with a £28 billion deficit under that Government, whereas we are this year making a £12 billion debt repayment. Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not believe in the golden rule that the Government have set, and to which we are adhering. The policies that he was promoting would take us straight back to the days of boom and bust.
Mr. Blunt: I thought that the golden rule was something to do with the cycle. Has it somehow changed?
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right. The golden rule refers to the cycle as a whole. If he is saying that he supports the golden rule, that would be a step forward. However, the hon. Gentleman appeared to say that, as soon as there is a need to start spending more on social security, it is necessary to start borrowing for it. That is not the approach that we have taken. We want a sustainable level of debt, and that is what we have achieved and will continue to achieve. We will not go back to the days of boom and bust. That has been a key element in our success in managing the economy.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the radical implications of our changes in capital gains tax. After four years, with the accelerated taper for business assets, the rate of capital gains tax will fall to 10 per cent. That will undoubtedly unleash a huge new wave of enterprise and investment in every community throughout the country. We should all be pleased about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East referred to the complimentary remarks of the new Archbishop of Westminster about the Budget. I am glad that he did that. He welcomed particularly, as did the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the new investment in Manchester metrolink. I was interested in what my hon. Friend had to say about the work that he has been doing in bringing together unemployed people, employers and others in his area, to discuss how best we can together tackle the barriers that still face people in moving into employment, and in his proposals, which were based on the discussions that have taken place. I shall examine them closely.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the really significant change over the past three years is that there are nearly 800,000 fewer people on income support now than there were at the time of the general election. All those people are no longer receiving benefit and are paying taxes. That is why we are able to make the huge new investments in education and the health service.
As well as welcoming the Manchester metrolink announcement, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said—I think that I have this right—that he does not immediately discount the possibility that the new deal may have done some good. He got really carried away later on and said that it had probably brought some

1203
benefits. That is as close as we will get to a recognition from a Conservative Member of the triumph that has been achieved through the new deal.
Mr. Brady: I have been consistent in the Education and Employment Select Committee and in the House in recognising that some benefit may have come from the new deal, but one expects quite a lot of benefit if one is spending £5 billion of public money, and it is far from proven that the Government are getting the bangs for their bucks.
Mr. Timms: The evaluation shows clearly that we are. The figures are in the Red Book. Long-term youth unemployment is 40 per cent. lower, according to the independent evaluation, than it would otherwise have been. That is a massive change for the better in the life chances of tens of thousands of young people who were abandoned by the previous Government and who can now look forward to a decent future. The whole House should welcome that. The hon. Gentleman has had the benefit of examining the details in the Select Committee. We are grateful to him at least for some grudging welcome of what we have achieved, but he has not recognised its true scale.
Mr. Blunt: The Labour party in opposition had a target of taking 250,000 young people off benefit and into work. The only sour fact is that the total was collapsing so fast when the Government came to office that there were only 187,000 people in the entire group. They inherited the welcome trend of a collapse in youth unemployment.
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. We will have achieved 250,000 youngsters going from benefit into work in the life of this Parliament, as we said that we would.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North for what he said about the excellent business breakfast that he organised this morning. The occasion was encouraging and useful.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) talked about the aggregates tax. The Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have worked closely together on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said at the time of the pre-Budget report that we were minded to introduce an aggregates levy unless there were a substantial improvement in the voluntary package that had been put together by the industry under the leadership of the Quarry Products Association.
The QPA has undoubtedly worked hard. It has had difficulties, because some of the smaller quarries defected and made it clear that they did not like the package that was being developed. It then started to add new strings to the package, and one aspect of its proposals was seriously
1204
anti-competitive and not compatible with European Union law. The reality is that, when the time came for us to reach a decision, which we said we would do in time for the Budget, there was no viable package on offer from the industry, so we went ahead, exactly as we had said in November that we would, with the announcement of a revenue-neutral aggregates levy to take effect from April 2002.
There was some confusion among Conservative Members about tobacco smuggling. The costs of the Budget announcements on that are indeed £209 million over three years, but the yield could be as much as £2.3 billion over the same period, massively exceeding the costs. Our approach—being tough on smuggling and ensuring that the benefits of higher tobacco charges are carried through into the health of the nation—is absolutely right.
We have made important announcements about how we will create stronger, more enterprising and innovative British business. The significant measures that we have announced include the radical changes on capital gains tax and the 40 per cent. first-year capital allowances being made permanent for small and medium-sized firms—a measure that has been demanded by such firms' representatives for a long time. We have—
It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 20th April—

(1) the House shall meet at half-past Nine o'clock, and shall between that hour and half-past Twelve proceed with a motion for the adjournment of the House made by a Minister of the Crown;

(2) the subject for debate on the said motion shall be 'matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment';

(3) at Eleven o'clock the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members;

(4) at half-past Twelve o'clock, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the motion for the adjournment shall lapse;

(5) a further motion for the adjournment of the House shall thereafter be made by a Minister of the Crown, and, subject to the Order of 1st March, if the Question on the said motion has not previously been agreed to, at One o'clock the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put; and

(6) there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  COMPETITION ACT 1998 (DIRECTOR'S RULES) ORDER
  Ordered,
  That the Competition Act 1998 (Director's Rules) Order 2000 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Asbestos-related Diseases
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
7 pm
Dr. Peter Brand: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise what is an important issue to a modest but growing number of people. They suffer the results of working in industries that used asbestos. Asbestos can cause pleural thickening, which is not in itself a great problem, but it can lead to further disease. It can cause asbestosis, which can be a crippling respiratory disease, but most importantly, it can lead to malignant mesothelioma, which is an especially pernicious cancer that is extremely resistant to any treatment and is usually fatal within six to 48 months of diagnosis.
Malignant mesothelioma typically occurs 20 to 40 years after exposure and, interestingly, in 1968, it caused 200 deaths, in 1999 there were some 1,500 deaths, and in about 10 years' time, it is projected that there will be some 3,500 deaths. That trend will probably continue for the next 15 to 25 years.
It has been understood that asbestosis carries a risk for some time. Undisturbed asbestos is not a great problem, but disturbed asbestos, as seen in industrial applications, has been under suspicion since the early 1950s. It is sad to record that no meaningful legislation was introduced until the 1970s. People now face the consequences of having worked in what were essential industries, such as shipbuilding. My interest is predominantly in those people who worked in the shipbuilding industries on the south coast, notably in Cowes on the Isle of Wight, and who are now presenting with that malignant disease.
I am aware that the industrial injuries disablement benefit applies to employed earners who contract the disease and I know that payments are made under the pneumoconiosis workers compensation legislation. I have also noted the update that will be applied this year. However, the payments under those schemes are hardly generous. They do not compensate the sufferer in any way for the disease, nor do they compensate the family and carers of the individual concerned.
People are, therefore, encouraged to turn to litigation to obtain compensation and to take actions against their former employers. That is a difficult job for those vulnerable people. If one knows that one has only 12 to 24 months to live, one does not really want to spend some 12 to 18 months going through the courts.
The state benefit system requires strict proof of the disease and, in that instance, the diagnosis is not usually in doubt. Bronchoscopy usually produces a specimen that can be proven histologically—it is awful that someone in my trade still stumbles over the technical terms—which means that it can be proven microscopically. There is no doubt of the type of disease that the claimant is suffering. It is particularly irksome, therefore, that when people are encouraged to go through the courts, many of the procedures are repeated and multiple expert opinions are sought while litigation is resisted.
I have been encouraged to seek this debate by a constituent, who visited me a week after the successful completion of his court case last month. He was given the diagnosis of his fatal disease on 4 January 1999 and it took him 12 months, which is a short time for such cases,
1206
of the rest of his life to establish decent compensation for himself and his family. He has written me a good letter, which I will quote. He says:
The existing law in these cases is ludicrous!!. At the present time the defence pleads "not guilty" routinely and to obtain proof of guilt the claimant's legal team have to employ a number of "experts" to prove the case. Defence then employs a similar number of "experts" to disprove these arguments.
He makes some useful suggestions, to which I will return. He believes that
in MOST cases the following would be a better procedure.

1. A suitably Qualified Surgeon and a Pathologist make a diagnosis. (this is the basis that later "experts" use to write their … reports.

2. A suitably experienced Litigation Executive should then prove where the claimant was employed, exposure to asbestos, loss of earnings, pension rights, etc.

The matter could then be placed before a judge or a tribunal and a decision made expeditiously.
At the moment, the company responsible uses time in a war of attrition, hoping that it will wear out the claimant and the case will be dropped. I have been told that there have now been many hundreds of cases, which have been strongly resisted but have all been settled, often just before the court hearing, and that 95 per cent. of those claims have been successful.
The present situation is not reasonable. The state system compensates, and rightly so, but the compensation is inadequate. Companies and their insurers know that they have a liability—there is enough case law now to know what is likely to succeed in court. The contribution made by the companies to the Government scheme is grossly inadequate to provide decent compensation.
We now have an opportunity to get the companies together with the Government and the legal side to find out whether a more meaningful compensation scheme can be constructed. As a minimum, one would expect a more expeditious legal way for people to claim—perhaps with specialist judges, or by having expert lawyers and with the acceptance that one does not have to replicate everything whenever an expert opinion is sought.
There is much interest in the House in the issue. Parliamentary questions have been tabled by the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). The House of Commons Library has produced an excellent research paper. The all-party group for occupational safety and health, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), has recently set up an asbestos panel.
The only people to benefit from the present system are some of my medical colleagues, and lawyers. I hope that the Government will develop a system under which the people who benefit are those with a reasonable claim to have suffered a disease that was foreseeable because of the industry involved. The industries that I am thinking of were often of strategic significance to this country. A system such as I have advocated would allow us to deal with the anomalous situation faced by ex-service men, which I know has exercised the House a great deal.
I am grateful to the Minister for being here. I was not sure whether the most appropriate Minister would have come from the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, or the Lord Chancellor's Department. I am very

1207
glad that the Minister attending this debate represents the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which has the widest experience of dealing with industrial claims of this sort.
I hope that the Minister, who is well known for expertise in her field, will also do a bit of joined-up governing and negotiate with her colleagues to see whether a system cannot be set up that would be in the interests of my constituent and people like him, and in the interests of insurance companies and former employers. Those organisations must be wasting a vast amount of time and money contesting claims, 95 per cent. of which fail in the courts.
7.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on securing this Adjournment debate. I am glad to be able to respond to the important issues that he has raised.
The hon. Gentleman is right: I used to be a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, where I had responsibility for the Health and Safety Executive. I also worked very hard—and, thankfully, with success—to produce agreement in Europe regarding a ban on white asbestos. That was the final form of asbestos, which was legal at the time. The ban came into effect in the United Kingdom and the European Union last year, and I am very proud of that.
However, I am now a Minister in the Department of Social Security.
Dr. Brand: May I therefore say how grateful I am to have a Minister from the Department of Social Security responding to the debate? The rest of my remarks still apply.
Angela Eagle: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's gratitude, as the Department of Social Security has prime responsibility for running the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme. That scheme provides some compensation for people who can prove that they have developed one of the four prescribed diseases as a result of being exposed to them in the course of their work. Members of the armed services have their own scheme, which is part of the war pensions benefits regime.
The people who really lose out are those who suffer environmental exposure, with the result that they cannot prove that they have been exposed in the course of their work. They therefore do not qualify for the industrial injuries benefit but have to make do with the ordinary disability benefits available to people with chronic or disabling diseases not acquired at work.
Different schemes and different approaches exist, but that reflects the industrial preference that any industrial injuries benefit scheme must, by definition, inject into a system. I agree that there is some complexity in the existing arrangements.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight spent some time describing a process that will be only too familiar to many hon. Members. Companies seek to avoid their liability for personal injury suffered by people whom they employed
1208
in order to avoid having to pay compensation. Many people would recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the delays that can occur when attempts are made to take cases through the courts.
I promise to pass on what the hon. Gentleman said to the Lord Chancellor's Department. His description of what happens in these difficult cases is familiar to anyone who pursues a personal injury case through the courts, especially when there may be a significant number of potential beneficiaries. Often companies do not and will not admit liability. There are examples of that in the litigation against tobacco companies in other countries, as well as the more obvious cases in this country to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Lord Chancellor may have views on the future of personal injuries litigation in order to ease some of these difficulties, but that is a matter for him rather than me. However, I promise to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments.
There are other difficulties with long latent diseases, such as the four prescribed asbestos-related diseases that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It sometimes takes so long for them to become apparent—it can take up to 40 years after exposure before some symptoms become obvious—that employers have often disappeared, and the companies responsible for the original exposure of individuals have long since gone out of business. That is why the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme exists. When I was a Minister at DETR, I had responsibility for matters arising under the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979, which is linked to the industrial injuries disablement benefit.
We do what we can to provide cover for asbestos-related diseases within the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme. The four prescribed diseases in the regulations are pneumoconiosis, mesothelioma, primary carcinoma of the lung and diffuse pleural thickening. The benefit scheme covers all employed earners, and there is no need to establish whether anyone was at fault. With many such no-fault compensation schemes, the compensation awarded tends to be lower because there is no court case and no fault is proved. The benefits are paid in addition to other incapacity and disability benefits, and they are not taxed.
Industrial injuries disablement benefit pays up to £108 a week, which will go up on 12 April to £109.30 if someone is assessed as 100 per cent. disabled. Additional benefits can be paid if someone is in need of constant care and attention, and when such a need is likely to be permanent. The additional benefits can amount to another £131 a week. I know that when people's health is affected, no figure can ever seem like reasonable compensation. This is merely the Government saying that they recognise the legacy of exposure to asbestos and the damage that has been caused. We want to give extra assistance to those who have been disabled in this way by their work.
Over the past five years, about 1,200 people a year have been awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit for the four prescribed asbestos-related diseases. For sufferers of mesothelioma, the majority of awards of benefit are paid at the maximum 100 per cent. disablement rate. For the other three prescribed diseases, benefits are paid on average at the 20, 30 and 40 per cent. rates of benefit, attracting weekly payments of between £21 and £43 a week. The payments continue for all the time that the person is disabled—usually for life, in these instances.

1209
The Government get advice on which diseases should be included in the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The council is an independent, expert body that includes representatives of both employers and employees as well as medical and other experts. Its most recent report on these diseases was published in 1996. It reviewed in detail the coverage for asbestos of the prescribed diseases and occupations within the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme.
The council recommended improvements to the rules in respect of these diseases. Those were agreed and came into effect in April 1997. In particular, the removal of the usual 90-day waiting period for sufferers from mesothelioma helps to get benefit to people more quickly. The considerable widening of the range of occupations included in benefit provisions for this disease helps to get benefit to more people. That touches on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised with respect to the shipbuilding industry. I represent Wallasey, which is on the River Mersey and has a great tradition of maritime activity, so this is also an issue for me as a constituency Member of Parliament. There is regrettably a great legacy of exposure to asbestos in such industries.
It is a continuous part of the IIAC's role to monitor scientific research and publications on all occupational diseases. This monitoring includes asbestos-related diseases. In the 1996 report, the council considered whether lung cancer without asbestosis or pleural thickening following substantial exposure to asbestos should be prescribed. I know that there has been some pressure from, among others, the hon. Members whom the hon. Gentleman said take a particular interest in the issue, to extend the prescription of disease to lung cancer. The council recommended to the Government that prescription was not appropriate in the light of current scientific evidence. However, the council will look again at any issue if new and robust scientific evidence emerges or is brought to its notice by whatever means.
It is important to remember that the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme is an occupational scheme designed to compensate employed earners. If it is clear that in a particular case a person has contracted an asbestos-related disease from exposure that was nothing to do with their work, then industrial injuries disablement benefit is not payable. However, these diseases, particularly mesothelioma, can take many years to develop and it is important for anyone claiming benefit for this disease to tell the Benefits Agency about any jobs that they did when they were younger in which they could have been exposed to asbestos—even if the jobs were only of short duration. It is important that people who develop such symptoms think long and hard about where they may have been exposed.
There are also other forms of compensation for asbestos-related diseases. I mentioned earlier war pensions provisions for service men and women whose service has resulted in their contracting the diseases. As the hon. Gentleman explained in some detail, people can make civil claims for damages against a negligent employer, but no one would discount the difficulty of proving such claims and taking such litigation through the courts. I accept the points that he made about that.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for a compensation scheme for people who have contracted certain lung diseases,
1210
including the diseases caused by asbestos, compensation for which is paid under the DSS scheme. The scheme is designed to pay mainly slate, quarry and some pottery workers who were subject to dust and developed pneumoconiosis as a result.
The schemes can appear complex. We try in the DSS to ensure that when we are made aware of a case we fast-track it as much as possible. We require medical evidence and we have to go through processes to check the claims, but, especially with mesothelioma, we fast-track cases to get a result as quickly as possible.
Dr. Brand: I put it on record that my complaint and that of my constituents is not with the Minister's Department or the way the scheme operates. I know from my clinical experience how co-operative people in the Benefits Agency can be in these circumstances—they are invariably helpful.
Will the Minister consider whether there is any chance of the companies currently at risk of litigation making substantial contributions to improve the very efficient but, I am afraid, not very generous state-run benefit system?
Angela Eagle: I cannot vouch for those companies, nor can I speak for them. Perhaps this is one of my more pessimistic days, but, given that the Health and Safety Executive suspects that there is a great legacy of exposure to asbestos—about 3,000 people a year develop the disease—it would be an issue for Lloyd's of London and other insurers as to the likely compensation and liabilities after years of use of asbestos, before we knew that it was as fatal as it can be. I think the hon. Gentleman may be optimistic in his assessment of the number of employers who would come forward. We can always ask, but I suspect I know the answer. Companies continue to fight every personal injury case that goes to court. They do so for a reason. We can only speculate about that reason, but I have given the hon. Gentleman some ideas about that.
The Government can ban the remaining available types of asbestos. As one of its priorities, the HSE is taking action to ensure that the asbestos that remains in many buildings and public spaces that are in constant use is properly contained. We can ensure that the regulations for change of building use or for demolition are more effectively policed and that they continue to offer and increase protection for those who may be exposed in future to latent asbestos in buildings.
There are compensation schemes. We are working carefully through the HSE and the construction industry to ensure that the legacy is dealt with in a way that minimises the chances of future exposure. However, we must realise that there is a legacy from past exposure, and that some of the diseases can take between 20 and 40 years to manifest themselves.
I understand and share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I shall pass his comments to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and shall be happy to keep in touch with him about any other individual cases.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Pensions Reform
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
2.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): This is the first Thursday afternoon debate in Westminster Hall in which I have participated. The Government are pleased to have initiated a debate on pensions reform. The date is fortuitous: such matters are arranged through the usual channels, but we could now be in the Chamber, perhaps making similar points on the Budget or pre-empting speeches on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which will be debated on Report on the Floor of the House next week and the week after.
This debate provides an opportunity for the House to evaluate the changes that the Government have initiated, some of which have already been dealt with in legislation, and to consider the future. I shall not cover too much of the background, but hon. Members will realise that many of our proposals stem from the pensions Green Paper of December 1998, in which we set out a long-term reform programme to meet the needs of the next 50 years. We cannot snap our fingers on pensions reform and make meaningful changes instantaneously or, indeed, in a decade; we must consider the long term, but doing so can make the figures seem large and the changes distant. I accept that it is not easy for hon. Members to grapple with those matters and explain them to their constituents. It is not easy for the Government to explain delays, but they are the inevitable consequence of dealing with pensions. Pensions are generally paid at the end of people's working lives, which can cover the best part of 40 to 50 years, so changes take time to come into effect.
I was a Member of Parliament when the legislation that implemented the state earnings-related pension scheme was debated in the late 1970s. I remember saying and listening to other hon. Members say, "All this will take too long; 20 years is a long time." SERPS was intended to cover the best 20 years of people's working lives. SERPS has been changed. Nevertheless, it provides decent pensions for those who retire now after working for the past 20 years. On average, men retiring today receive in excess of £50 a week under SERPS. That has taken 20 years, but it is now happening.
Our objective, which I think everyone shares, is to ensure that people look forward to a decent income in retirement and are not apprehensive about that period of their lives. The reforms must produce a fair balance between the responsibilities of the state and the individual and of the public and private sectors. We have made no secret of the fact that we wish to shift the balance of pension provision from 60 per cent. public, 40 per cent. private to 40 per cent. public, 60 per cent. private. The changes that we intend to make fit that overall framework.
260WH
Our starting point is that too many older people are poor. That is one of the serious issues, together with child poverty, that the Government are tackling, but we can do so only if we are prepared to be honest and target our resources. Without action, inequality will grow.
I wish to deal with today's pensioners and tomorrow's pensioners—our twin-track policy. The needs and aspirations of today's older people are on the Government's agenda. We entitled today's debate "Pensions Reform", but the wider agenda for dealing with older people goes beyond income. Income is important, but the Government have to deal with many broader issues—hence the establishment of the inter-ministerial group for older people. One of its purposes is to ensure that as Departments across Whitehall create and initiate policy changes, they think about the needs and aspirations of older people. Whether in health, housing, transport or Home Office matters, we want the agenda for older people to be taken into account. Much research has been commissioned. Ministers have been listening to what older people have to say around the country and a national event in May will pull together some of the issues that emerged at regional meetings. Our commitment to the basic retirement pension as a fundamental building block remains, although there is scope for arguing about its level and operation. All other pension provision will be made in relation to it.
I wish to speak about the minimum income guarantee—a new higher threshold, means-tested provision for older people. It is age-related and paid at three levels. It changes at the age of 73 and again at 80. According to the general household survey, at least 500,000 pensioners fail to claim it. In a few moments, I shall return to how we intend to address that problem. The current level is £75 a week for a single pensioner and £116.60 for a couple. This April, the rates will change to £78.45 and £121.95, which could mean an increase of £280 a year for a single person compared with the pre-April 1999 position. Those are the basic figures at the ages of 60 and 65. As I said, at 75 and 80 the mean figures are higher.
Our policy of increasing MIG in line with earnings each year will continue for the rest of this Parliament— I cannot go beyond that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that abundantly clear on more than one occasion. We also delivered—or, at least, with our announcements, started to deliver—on the Green Paper pledge to reward savers on low incomes. A saver on a low income can be trapped and unable to access available benefits.
One of the problems with MIG is capital limits, particularly the lower one for income support, which has remained at £3,000 since 1988. I regret that it will take a year for it to change, but an increase will come into effect in April 2001. It is the nature of the beast: many parliamentary and administrative procedures have to be undertaken and it takes time for the changes to come through. Nevertheless, the increase will take the limit way above any indexation. If it had been indexed, it would be between £4,600 and £4,800. The increase to £6,000 is substantial.
The upper limit at which MIG if phased out will increase from £8,000 to £12,000, although that has not been frozen so long. There is a discriminatory element in that the upper limit was changed in the early 1990s. The

261WH
upper limit is more useful to people with more savings. We have concentrated the biggest change—a doubling—on those with the lowest amount of savings.
One can get only a flavour of the changes from the Chancellor's Budget speech because much of the detail is in the documentation that follows. The Chancellor announced that a review into the new pensioner credit would investigate ways of building on MIG to provide further help for those who have worked hard to provide for themselves. Such people have no savings, so are not cornered by the capital limit, but have a low income that is just above MIG limit. They might have an occupational pension that is worth tuppence ha'penny, perhaps £7 or £8 a week, but which is enough to take them above MIG limit. I know from my constituents that the greatest bitterness about the working of means-tested limits comes from those who are just above the limit. They also miss out on the other passported benefits, some of which can have a greater value than the little bit of extra income that stops them receiving the benefit in the first place.
Mr. David Drew: I should be interested to hear whether the review will look at housing benefit and how it affects that group. I have constituents with very small private or occupational pensions and for every pound that they receive they seem to lose much more in housing benefit.
Mr. Rooker: We have only just announced the review. Our target is to publish its findings before the Chancellor's autumn statement, which is generally made in November. My hon. Friend is basically right. The tapers on housing benefit are great and can operate extremely harshly. The matter should be considered. A housing Green Paper is also due to be published, certainly before the summer, and a substantial element of that will deal with housing benefit. It may get subsumed in the publication of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Mr. Paul Burstow: On the point about the changes to the thresholds, can the Minister shed more light on what it says in the Red Book? The Red Book refers to a cost for such a change of £145 million. Can we take it from that figure that the Government will also look at the tariffs underlying the thresholds? At present, it is assumed that one earns 20p on every £1 of capital. I would love to find the bank that could do that for us. That is clearly an absurd figure and should be reduced.
Mr. Rooker: Without the benefit of a note, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the decision that has been announced is on the capital limit itself, not on that tariff income. The tariff income implies an interest rate of 20 per cent. and if we consider the question of pensioner credit, we would have to look at that. It has been set deliberately high, in effect to force people to use part of their capital to get to the limit. The calculations in the Red Book imply not a change in the tariff income—if they do, I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman later—but only a change to the basic capital limit. The tariffs
262WH
will be looked at in the larger term review. It clearly should be an item on the agenda if one is considering pensioner credits.
We also know that, for various reasons, people who do not claim MIG are unaware of it. I have not yet met anyone who is embarrassed to claim it. I am not saying that no one is, but research shows that 500,000 to 600,000 people have missed out. That information comes from the general household survey of real people, although the grossed-up figure is a statistical exercise to give us an idea of the extent of the problem.
MIG take-up campaign has been a long time in coming, but I should be embarrassed if I had to say at the next Department of Social Security questions that it is due imminently shortly or shortly imminently, as was the case on the previous two occasions. To the best of my knowledge, the multi-million pound, Government-driven, MIG take-up campaign will be announced before the next Social Security questions on Monday week.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I do not wish to encourage the Minister's blushes, but will he explain why there has been such a terrible delay?
Mr. Rooker: One embarrassing reason is that it has been a bigger exercise than we contemplated, simply because—this is not a criticism—the Government have not conducted a take-up campaign like this before, so we have no example to follow. When the disability living allowance was introduced, the problem was its success. There was such a great response to that brand new benefit and so much free advertising for it, that sacks of mail remained unopened and Members of Parliament were issued with about 10 dedicated telephone lines because correspondence could not be answered quickly enough.
Some research was carried out into why people were not claiming the benefit. Hon. Members may say that that beggars belief, but we know why people do not claim: they are ignorant about it, they will not go to a benefits office, they are embarrassed and they do not want to know about a means test. However, a proper take-up campaign cannot be based on such evidence. It is clear from the statistical information that some people who do not claim MIG are content to claim housing and council tax benefits. The argument that they do not want to take the means test does not apply. It may be because access to housing and council tax benefits is via the local authority, although it is Government money. There is a different avenue into the system and that may be a factor.
We have considered a range of issues and it has taken a while to assemble the finance. I can tell the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), that the Benefits Agency has identified 2 million people from its records who might be eligible for MIG, based on criteria such as age and what has been paid. We do not know everything about their circumstances or their capital and that is a problem. It has not been a five-minute job to find 2 million people from our computer records, but we will write to all of them, although not on the same day as we could not cope with the response. There will also be newspaper and television advertisements and a free help line, which will take applications on the

263WH
telephone. People will be contacted in three tranches of 600,000 or so, but they will not have to have a letter to be able to claim or to use the telephone help line, and they will be informed of that fact. Electronic claim forms will be used; people will not be sent a 40-page form to sign, because the size of the document puts them off.
Something else that puts people off MIG is that although we may talk about it, until now not a single Government publication, leaflet or application form has that name on it, as it is delivered through the income support system. Our constituents do not know about it. This is a new and fairly complex way of putting the information across. It has taken all this time to put together a genuinely open and effective take-up campaign. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will write to all hon. Members at the time of the launch to tell them about it. We did some pilot research in about 15 local authority areas. I will ensure that hon. Members from those areas also receive the research report. They may find it useful to know what was said about their constituencies. An announcement will be made prior to the next Social Security Question Time. If it is not, my head will be on the block. I cannot give the precise date, but I am assured that it will be before Monday week.
Winter fuel payments are not means-tested. This is part of our effort to share the extra wealth in the country among the pensioner population as a whole, which was not the least of our manifesto commitments. The payments are well timed. It is true that they are based on households, not on people, and of course there is still the backlog because of last year's judgment of the European Court of Justice that men over 60 have to be eligible. The court ruled that the payment should be age-related, not simply for pensioners. We hope to announce shortly how we will make retrospective payments for the past three winters, and get the payments for the coming winter to the right people in November and December. As hon. Members know, the amount is to be raised to £150 per household. The increase resulting from the European Court judgment will benefit 1.5 million people. By and large, by definition they will be men because we assume that we have included all women over 60: if we have not, I want to know about it.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: On a technical point, given that the retirement age for women will go up in the next few years, what arrangements, if any, will the Government put in place for winter fuel payments, or do they intend it to remain at 60 whatever the retirement age?
Mr. Rooker: I do not think that we shall need to make arrangements because by and large the payment will be tied to retirement age and as that equalises, the payment will move up. I hope that by 2020, when the retirement age for both men and women will be 65—there is to be a transfer between 2010 and 2020, at which the retirement age for women will go from 60 to 65—winter fuel payments will be tied to that equalised age. That is my assumption, because payment is tied to age. We must pay at the same age to both sexes as a consequence of the European Court's judgment that discrimination between genders on the basis of age is wrong.
I will speak briefly on aspects relating to tomorrow's pensioners. Although MIG is good and will, we hope, be made more successful, I do not want to be in the position
264WH
of selling MIG to today's 20, 30 and 40-year-olds because I do not want them to retire on to the means test. I want them to do better than that. MIG is there essentially for today's pensioners and those who will become pensioners in the very near future—those who either did not have an opportunity for a second pension, have not had a full work record for various reasons such as unemployment, caring or disability, or have been unable to make provision that others were able to make.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On the unemployment point, I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is vital that people who may become unemployed while making provision for a stakeholder pension have some sort of safety net to ensure that that unemployment does not cause real grief later. Will he explain what he intends to do about the wave of contribution insurance policies, because at present they cover only accident and sickness, although from 2001 they will cover unemployment? Will that create an unlevel playing field? Will the new policies apply to existing friendly or stakeholder policies? As people will be able to put lump sums or irregular payments into stakeholder pensions, will it be permissible for them to phase in their premiums to insure against unemployment?
Mr. Rooker: Those are legitimate questions, to which I do not have all the answers. The rules for stakeholder pensions have been made flexible to corral the maximum number of people into the scheme, irrespective of whether they are part of the target group. I hope that the nature of the payments will allow people who experience periods of unemployment to make up shortfalls. I am not sure about private sector insurance policies. Some are time-limited for unemployment benefits, perhaps covering only a few years. That will probably be a matter for the stakeholder providers. It is possible that the same private sector companies will provide stakeholder pensions and insurance policies, but that is a separate issue. The hon. Gentleman's point is wholly valid and must be addressed.
Mr. Leigh rose—
Mr. Rooker: I should be happy to develop this case and correspond with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Leigh: That is the assurance that I wanted. Although the points are technical, I want to know what will be permissible.
Mr. Rooker: I would be more than happy to reply to the hon. Gentleman later. His questions are legitimate and require answers. Indeed, we do not want to cause a negative effect on the take-up of stakeholder pensions.
During the past few months, I have repeatedly said that it has been known, but not always said, that for the past 50 years, the basic state pension has not been enough to provide a decent retirement income. There never was a golden day. I would dispute the contention that since 1948 the basic pension, on its own, has provided a comfortable and decent quality of life in retirement. The problem is that Ministers with responsibility for pensions of both parties have never admitted that, so there has been no impetus to act. There

265WH
were attempts to improve matters, including those made by Keith Joseph and in the 1960s by Richard Grossman, but there has been no impetus to tell people that if they do not do something about their pension arrangements, such as providing for a second pension, they will experience some poverty and be stuck on the means test when they retire. We must be open and spell out the problem.
On the state second pension proposals, the Committee stage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which reforms SERPS, has been completed. Hopefully, its Report stage will be finished before Easter. It is, however, possible for changes to occur as it proceeds. SERPS is good at delivering pensions, notwithstanding the changes that were made to it in 1986 and 1995. However, it is useless for the low paid, and inadquate for people who spend a lot of their time as carers or who are disabled but have some work experience. We need to redress the balance. We want to raise earners above MIG. The state second pension will triple the amount that many low-paid people would have received under SERPS.
When the state second pension is introduced—our target date is 2002-ish; certainly not before then—18 million people will immediately begin to accrue bigger pension entitlements. It is important that hon. Members take that point on board. On this year's figures, 4.5 million of those pensioners will be low earners with an income of less than £9,500 a year, and 9.5 million will be moderate earners with an income of between £9,500 and £21,000. Also included will be 2 million carers and 2 million disabled people with broken work records. It will unarguably take time before their pensions are paid, but they will begin to accrue bigger pensions from the start.
Many people will gain under the new system compared with SERPS. Hon. Members who sat on the Committee will have seen the charts and graphs produced by the Government Actuary to show that that. The state second pension is good for low earners, but moderate earners with an income of between about £9,000 and £20,000 a year without access to a good occupational pension scheme and for whom personal pensions are unsuitable should enter a funded stakeholder scheme. We have published draft regulations and hope to have them on the statute book soon—probably just after Easter.
As we have said, we are working to a tight timetable. We want to get the details right because the private sector will be providing the pensions, not the Government. That does not mean that new personal pensions cannot be sold. I shall comment on potential mis-selling. The Financial Services Authority has made it clear that advice should take proper account of the introduction of stakeholder pension schemes. We are still on target for registering stakeholder providers from October and for starting the schemes from April 2001. The schemes are designed to be simple to compare. The proposed maximum charge of 1 per cent. will mean that people will know exactly what they are paying—there will be no hidden extras.
People in the industry have complained that they cannot meet the requirements. However, some companies have managed and have said that they will be
266WH
happy to provide the pensions, when the regulations come through, within the maximum figure of 1 per cent. It is not the Government's business to be bowled over by others in the industry when there appear to be providers willing to offer products within these challenging but realistic parameters.
We want access to stakeholder pensions to be via the workplace so far as possible, but it will be possible to purchase them as a retail product in the high street. We want to encourage potential members. Take-up is voluntary—there is no requirement for an employer contribution. Employers will be required only to allow employees to have access to a stakeholder provider and to have a stakeholder pension; they will also have to make deductions from earnings. That method is by far the best way to pay for a pension—much better than one-off payments and direct debit—as our reseach shows that what is not received is not missed.
We have made the situation extremely flexible. It is so flexible that we are open to sniping criticism from hot shots in the financial press who say that people can buy a stakeholder pension for a child on the day that it is born or for a millionaire's wife as a tax device. That is part of the price that we pay for making the scheme so flexible, and there is nothing wrong with buying a pension for a child because, being a pension, no one can get to the money. It is not a savings scheme—the money is locked into a pension once it has been paid in. It is not a false device for gaining a pot before retirement.
A couple of weeks ago Money Marketing conducted a survey of pensions that are being advertised as stakeholder friendly. I have seen advertisements from companies that state that their pensions are stakeholder friendly and that they will convert when the Government regulations are up and running. We do not want any mis-selling, either before or after stakeholder pensions are introduced. The regulatory authorities, whether that is the pensions ombudsman, the occupational pensions regulatory authority or the Financial Services Authority, will take a dim view of people who deliberately mis-sell pensions and who put a stakeholder badge on products that do not conform to the regulations. We have already published the draft regulations, so there is no excuse. However, last week's survey showed that of about 60 pensions that were claimed to be stakeholder friendly, only six met all the criteria for a stakeholder pension.
The Financial Services Authority will examine the Money Marketing survey. I was set to name the bad guys this afternoon, but then I thought that perhaps it might be better if I named the good guys. I do not want a company to be able to quote Hansard and say, "The Minister says that our product is the best." However, if there is evidence of continued mis-selling, I will name names. This new provision is designed to target millions of moderate earners who have no access to a second pension. We will not allow them to be sold a pup in advance of the scheme as a result of companies using the term "stakeholder friendly" despite the fact that there are hidden charges and exit charges. We will not stand for that. The regulatory authorities will come down like a tonne of bricks on companies that do that. It is right that I should put that warning on the record.
I want to make one further point and that is about the future. Pensions are not a politically sexy issue, unless one is a poorer pensioner for whom the Government of

267WH
the day are not doing enough or a Maxwell pensioner—I raise that issue before anyone else does—whose pension was stolen by that crook. Those people have a direct interest in pensions, but we need to get other people, in their 20s and 30s, interested in pension provision. There is no mechanism by which to do that, except through the exhortations of Ministers, but I would not even begin to try to do that because no one would listen. If we could find a way of giving every employee, once a year, not just a P60 but a piece of paper that sets out their pension forecast at that time, including the state retirement pension, the state second pension, SERPS and any occupational stakeholder or personal pension, and add the statement, "If you think these figures are not enough and want to do something about it, you must put in another 5 per cent., which would have this effect," a lot more people would say, "Hang on a minute, I do not understand this. It is not enough. What can I do about it? Why am I being short-changed? Why am I not getting a bigger pension?" People would clamour for more information, which would have a big effect on the education of the population.
It is not easy to provide a universal pension forecast but we shall try to do that, hopefully to start in 2002. We are currently conducting a pilot scheme through the pension schemes of Prudential and Sainsbury, and we hope to have the initial results of the pilot before the end of the month. Later this year, in about September, we shall pilot another seven companies, as well as the civil service pension scheme. That will be a big exercise, but it is important to get the design of the forms right and the scheme must be computer-generated. The scheme will not be compulsory, but I would hope that, within a few years, it would be able to embrace every employee in the country. That will put in the past all the problems about people not being prepared for their old age.
We have included a provision in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill to make the pension forecast exercise easier by enabling people to opt out rather than requiring them to opt in, as they currently have to do in the pilots. For example, Sainsbury had to write to 60,000 of its employees who are in the company pension scheme asking them to approve the inclusion of the Department of Social Security information in their pension forecast. Data protection is extremely important, so it would be much better to give people the right to opt out.
Improvement of people's knowledge will probably be the biggest single policy that the Government can carry through with the support of all parties. All hon. Members would agree that such improvement is a good thing if we can get the practicalities right, which is why the Government initiated the pilots. It is the one single change that will have the maximum effect.
Mr. Drew: Is there a significant problem with the number of people who are working in a succession of part-time jobs? Such employees often have the most deficient knowledge about pensions entitlements and provision.
Mr. Rooker: Not only that, there are also millions of self-employed people, many of whom do not have any provision. We must find a way to corral those people in as well.
268WH
We have made a modest but good and positive start. MIG is in place, and we are about to publish literature on it and to deal seriously with pension issues in the take-up campaign, which, as I said, is a multi-million pound national campaign. The stakeholder legislation is on the statute book, the draft regulations have been published and are being consulted on as I speak. We are on course to start in April of next year. The state second pension legislation is currently passing through the House and we have promised to develop ideas for a pensioner credit, whose introduction we hope to announce later this year, although it will obviously be for the next Parliament.
There is much to do, but I am confident that we have made a good start. Although not everything is perfect, many statistics show that most of today's pensioners are in good health and are extremely active. I have tried to avoid using too many figures, but I shall detail them if it is necessary to do so. We want pensioners to continue to be mentally and physically active and to have a good quality of life. Most have a decent income, although a substantial number are still living in poverty. We must address that group and target our resources on it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I advise the Chamber that I intend to call the Opposition spokesman next and then the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I shall then return to the usual procedure for calling speakers in such debates, but I feel that it is helpful to hon. Members to hear the leading parties' views early in the discussion.
3.12 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I welcome this debate on pensions reform, although I find its timing somewhat peculiar, as Parliament is in the process of considering legislation that adds to the Government's reform programme.
I welcome the Minister of State to the debate. I was not entirely sure who would turn up from the Department of Social Security. I was also not sure whether the Minister would still be the pensions Minister, whether he might be Secretary of State for pensions or whether he would be heading up a new Pensions Ministry. That thought resonated with me, as the Wilson Government abolished the Pensions Ministry in the 1960s, and my godmother was a Minister of Pensions in 1959. I thought it ironic that new Labour should go back 40 years and become old Labour. Even if we have a Minister of Pensions in the long run, with most benefits going to the hydra-headed monster led by the Department for Education and Employment and—in respect of in-work benefits—the Secretary of State for Social Security, and with the Treasury removing all of the tax elements of pensions, we must wonder what is left for the right hon. Gentleman. He has announced his retirement, and I hope that he enjoys being the Minister for pensions until the next election, which may take place some 12 to 15 months from now. As ever, it is a pleasure to debate with him, and we look forward to the next stages of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill in the coming week.
The Government came to power promising to think the unthinkable on pensions and appointed the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to do so—

269WH
which he did. He is not here, which is a shame as I had hoped he would contribute to the debate. However, he is no longer in the Government and, as we have heard, the unthinkable has become the modest proposals that we have been considering during this Parliament. It is a shame that the Government, who came to office promising to look after everyone and give them a decent retirement, have in effect added two new products to an already overcrowded pension market. Is that the unthinkable? Should we not take a more radical look at pensions reform?
In addressing the broad matter of pensions reform it is helpful to consider where we started. It is acknowledged that there has been a huge increase in pensioner wealth in the past 20 to 30 years. Indeed, some of the older legislation brought many people into occupational and other pension schemes well before 1979. However, in that year, 47 per cent. of pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution. By 1995–96, that figure had nearly halved, to 24 per cent. and the proportion of pensioners reliant on means-tested benefit had reduced from 57 to 40 per cent. The main reasons were the 162 per cent. increase in real income from occupational pensions and a rise of 110 per cent. in investment income.
I am sure that it is in the minds of several hon. Members to say that the figures I have given are from Conservative central office. I hate to disappoint them. They come from Professor Robert Walker, director of the centre for research in social policy at Loughborough university, in an article in The Times in September.
It is obvious that provision has already expanded hugely. A consequence has been the development of very complex tax regimes. I understand that at least 12 different tax regimes apply to the pensions system. Constituents' faces glaze over when one talks to them about this. The complexity puts people off. The Government acknowledged that in their document "Road to the Manifesto—Security in Retirement", which stated that they would
place a high priority on ensuring that schemes are simple to understand and operate for both members and employers.
I have given the entire quotation, because I should hate to be accused of choosing only those parts that would fit my argument.
The Minister concluded his speech with the wholly admirable idea that everyone should be given an indication of what his or her pension would be. The Committee welcomed that initiative, however, it is both necessary and difficult to achieve partly because of the sheer complexity of the pension system. If the Government want to think the unthinkable, that should include simplifying the system. I acknowledge that there have been some straightforward proposals to do away with carry forward and carry back. However, it is no exaggeration to say that that is nibbling around the edges. We need a much more over-arching review of how the interaction of the tax system and pensions produces such a complicated and difficult regime and, dare I say it, how that adds to pension charges. If the Government had a real desire to reduce charges, the best that they could do would be to reduce complexity.
However, the two products delivered by the Government have resulted in more complexity. You were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the Child
270WH
Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill was discussed in Committee and we were trying to elucidate the complexities of the state second pension. It was full of initials and the eyes of my hon. Friends glazed over when we were debating it. I did not blame them for a minute, because the debate was full of terms such as qualified earnings factor and low earnings threshold. The Bill states, for example, that
the value of N is 0.5 for each tax year by which the tax year in which the pensioner attained pensionable age precedes 2009–10,
yet it is meant to be reducing the complexity of the pension system.
The Minister alluded to the simple concept of the state second pension. We agree that it is a simple concept, but the problem is that people who enter into such arrangements will not be faced with a simple statement. They must decide whether it is worth while to claim a state second pension. They must analyse what is in it for them, which leads to matters such as the qualified earnings factor. It is horrendously difficult for people to understand the state second pension, when it applies to them and moves on from simply being a concept.
Mr. Leigh: To reduce the complexity, it may be worth our considering the Australian model under which all employers and employees are required to put aside money for a state-regulated, but privately operated, pensions system. If a real reform were undertaken, it would be possible to do away with such complicated differentiations between the state second pension, the stakeholder pension, personal pensions and occupational pensions and ensure that our society was based on provision for the future.
Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not only in Australia where such attractive schemes are in place. The difficulty is how to move from where we are now to that position. By trying to simplify matters by introducing the state second pension and the stakeholder pension, the Government have made the system more complicated because they have delivered yet another product rather than a fundamental reform. Our criticism of the Government's pensions reform policy is that it is more complex; they have not grappled with the need for simplification.
I shall return briefly to the state second pension, Mr. Deputy Chairman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I assist the hon. Lady? I hold few titles, but the one that I do hold and immensely honour is that of an additional Mr. Deputy Speaker for sittings in Westminster Hall.
Mrs. Lait: My most abject apoloigies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to remember to address you by your correct title.
The state second pension has a curious hump-back structure. It is designed to ensure that people move out of the state sector and into stakeholder pensions. That happens at the break point of £9,500. The Minister said in Committee that he expects the figure of £9,500 to change from time to time—to take account of inflation, growth in the economy or whatever criteria he has in mind. I have not found from the papers that accompanied the Budget statement and the Red Book—

271WH
I hope that I have read them throughly—any change to the £9,500 projected figure. It was announced a year ago and there has been an increase in inflation, albeit a small one.
I am sure that the Minister knows what I am coming to now: the interaction with stakeholders, the state second pension and the minimum income guarantee. He talked at great length about the minimum income guarantee and, understandably, he wishes it to be restricted to people who are retired or approaching retirement imminently. He is hoping that the stakeholder and state second pensions will be so successful that people will not need to apply for the minimum income guarantee or, indeed, the new pensioner credit. I was grateful to him for referring to that because the Red Book was slightly disingenuous about the pensioner credit in that it did not mention it. However, it talked about introducing a taper to the minimum income guarantee.
I am sure that the Minister is bored with me saying that the existence of the minimum income guarantee has an effect on whether people take up stakeholder and state second pensions. The increase in the minimum income guarantee will make stakeholder pensions even less attractive to people who we would hope might be saving for their pension. Generally, people who start making contributions early in a stakeholder pension and earn up to the target of £20,000 will, with luck, accumulate a pension pot of £100,000 in today's terms. The annuity rates on £100,000 are low at the moment, because of low interest rates and the fact that the Government do not need to issue gilts upon which annuities are based. Should the economy continue as it is doing— and there are big questions about that—and annuity rates remain low, in 20 or 30 years' time, those retiring on stakeholder pensions will make a clear calculation that it was not worth their while taking out a stakeholder pension. I should like the right hon. Gentleman and others in the Government to address that.
The interaction of the minimum income guarantee and the new pension product would not encourage any rational economic person, looking after his family on relatively low earnings, to forgo expenditure on his family to save for his pension. We may deplore it, and we probably all do, but a rational person would say, "It is not worth my while." Unfortunately, the flaw in the stakeholder pension is in its strategy.
I return briefly to the state second pension. The key is that, because of the hump-back structure and the £9,500, the structure of the state second pension will—and I acknowledge that the Minister said this—quite deliberately push people earning more than £9,500 into stakeholder pensions. If it is not worth people's while to go into stakeholder pensions, they will choose the minimum income guarantee.
The Minister said that he would introduce stage 2 only when he or whatever was left of the Department was satisfied that the Government were reaching their target audience. He knows that we have tabled and continue to table amendments to get him to define the target audience. He rightly referred to people earning up to £20,000. Such people cover a wide range of different family circumstances and structures. How the Minister conducts the excerise to define whether his target market has been reached is of great interest to us all. Unless he
272WH
defines the target audience and how it will be reached, it will be impossible to judge the success of the stakeholder scheme. Merely saying, "Of course we shall consult and report to Parliament, and of course we shall debate the matter" is not good enough. Unless he defines precisely to whom he is trying to sell stakeholder pensions, he and his successors will have an out in determining the success of the scheme.
Mr. John MacGregor: Perhaps I should declare an interest as a non-executive director of one of the six companies that the Minister mentioned that offered schemes run in accordance with stakeholder pensions—not one of the ones that he identified as doing the reverse.
I am sorry that I was not in the Standing Committee that considered the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill to follow the important point that my hon. Friend made. Although I recognise that it might last only for one Parliament, indexing the MIG to earnings will provide no real incentive for a financial adviser to advise people who earn between about £9,500 and £15,000 to take out a stakeholder pension. There is a genuine dilemma, as many financial advisers will probably say, "I am not sure that it is worth your doing it, because the minimum income guarantee is likely to continue well beyond this Parliament." There is a genuine difficulty for the Government, but unless they deal with it, in due course they may well be accused of the biggest ever mis-selling of pensions. It is a genuine problem, and they must find an answer.
Mrs. Lait: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, and I am glad that he made that point. I suppose that I was trying to skirt around it by referring to the target audience. Although many stakeholder providers believe that the costs involved might be as low as 1 per cent. of the cost of producing the policy, many will argue that the people for whom stakeholder is intended are precisely those who, because of M1G and the state second pension, need advice, and no advice comes for free. Some companies may regard stakeholder as a loss leader, and subsidise it; others may not. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Government must tackle that.
If the Government respond to all those points, the stakeholder pension might become a good vehicle. We look forward to examining the regulations on stakeholder in detail in Committee. Hopefully, that will be after Easter, as the Minister said. We are glad that matters are proceeding. So many measures seem to be being introduced shortly or imminently, but we have a date, and that is good.
I was also glad that the Minister clarified his remarks at the Pensions Management Institute conference yesterday. Although, unfortunately, I could not attend because I was debating a different subject in this Chamber, I heard reports that led me to believe that the Minsiter may have taken an attitude towards companies that are trying to develop new products to meet stakeholder requirements that might put them off rather than encourage them. He needs to deal with the apprehension that has arisen as a result of his remarks yesterday, which were reported to me as more confrontational than those this afternoon.

273WH
If the Minister and his advisers believe that some products are not compliant, every argument and justification can be advanced for ensuring that they are. Unfortunately, he put that in a much more threatening way. It would he helpful if he discussed that. I am sure that he does not want anyone to withdraw from the market, but would prefer them to increase the number of products that comply with the new requirements.
The right hon. Gentleman briefly mentioned the self-employed. We return to the words "shortly" and "imminently", because, when we talk about encouraging the self-employed to make more provision for themselves, the answer is always, "We are consulting." Self-employed people should not be put off by delays in addressing their concerns. Two years out of a pension pot is a long time, and there has already been a fall in the number of products being taken out. Although the right hon. Gentleman should not proceed precipitately, he ought to address the issues relating to self-employed people more directly, so that the Government do not have to deal with self-employed people who say, "I couldn't purchase a stakeholder pension, because I was waiting for the Government. It's now not worth my while, and therefore I'm going on to MIG." I am sure that the Government do not want that. We certainly want more self-employed people to be in a position to make their own pension provision. As the labour market changes, there will be more self-employed people who do not have a business to sell, because they operate in the knowledge-based industries.
We are also concerned about the take-up campaign. I am glad that the Minister was clearer about the time scale; he said that action would be taken before the next Social Security questions. However, unless he makes a major announcement about the take-up campaign tomorrow, he will have only seven days to do something. I hope that we get that announcement in the next seven or eight days, but it is a tight time scale. We look forward to seeing the details of the campaign.
The Minister said that the Benefits Agency has identified 2 million people who are potentially eligible for the minimum income guarantee. He went on to say that the agency would write to everyone. I am glad that it will take that approach to the matter. However, as I understand it, people are eligible for most benefits only from the date of application. If it is a roll-out campaign, and if the 500,000 people identified by the general household survey submit applications in the coming months, from what date will they be able to claim benefits?
Mr. Rooker: It will be the date on which they claim the benefit—the date on which they sign the form. People do not have to wait for the letters; they can make inquiries. As with other benefits, the key date will be the date on which they claim. The benefit is there to be claimed today, without the need for the take-up campaign.
Mrs. Lait: I am grateful for that information, but I foresee difficulties if the system works alphabetically. Someone whose surname begins with Z would get the letter 26 weeks later. There will be some very unhappy people whose names begin with Z. I wonder whether it
274WH
would be worth while for the Minister to consider whether some flexibility might help to avert potential rows, especially given the effect on the United Kingdom of decisions by the European Court. There may be challenges. I do not know, but I can see it happening. Perhaps more thought should be given to that campaign. Many hon. Members were swamped, as the right hon. Gentleman said that he was, by problems from constituents applying for disability living allowance. Will he consider setting up an MPs' telephone line? I know that there are special lines for applicants, but one would also be useful for us.
Mr. Chairman—I am sorry, I mean Mr. Additional Deputy Speaker. That reminds me of The Mikado.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady will catch my eye in future when I am in the Chair.
Mrs. Lait: I do not want to dig myself into an even deeper hole, Mr. Additional Deputy Speaker, but one must admit that The Mikado was one of Gilbert And Sullivan's most successful operettas. I am sure that you are one of our most successful additional Deputy Speakers.
I am sure that everyone is absolutely delighted that I am drawing my remarks to a close. First, however, I must acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman announced in a written answer yesterday that the Government plan to relax some of the rules on annuities. That is welcome, especially because of the present value of annuities. However, I do not know whether the Government are going as far as people demand. I support the pensions reform working party's suggestion of a basic annuity for everybody, which would provide an income just above the minimum income guarantee. That is an astute and clever way to avoid the stakeholder pension difficulty that we discussed, although it does not deal with the rest of people's pension pot and their desire to look after that more effectively and efficiently themselves. The Government should consider that and the issue of income draw down at 75 more creatively.
Miss Kirkbride: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I missed the Government's answer to that parliamentary question. This morning, I received a letter from an extremely concerned constituent. He is 73, about to turn 74, and he is unhappy about having to make a decision quickly. I now have the chance to ask the Minister to please get on with it. Some people desperately need the system to be changed.
Mrs. Lait: I could not agree more. We shall return to that when we consider the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill on Report. The pressure will continue to build up. Given the flexible working market and the improving health of our pensioners, providing for income draw down at 75 smacks of ageism. I heartily recommend that the Government take a more lenient view. We must address annuities, their value, and the income draw down, and the issues around them—I hate the word "around", and I must stop using it.
I also hate people who always say that they are making one last point, but that is what I am about to do. It is based on the Red Book. The subject is not

275WH
necessarily the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, but it is worth throwing into the pot, because pensions are crucial to it. The royal commission on long-term care made some radical suggestions on care for the elderly, but the Government have not necessarily acted on them. The issue has not gone away, but the Government have undertaken no significant policy developments. However, I spotted a reference in the Red Book to the fact that people can buy annuities against their houses, as they did with the old home income plans, and receive tax relief at 23 per cent. up to £30,000. It struck me immediately that tax relief at 23 per cent. gives an annuity of up to £36,900. A footnote in the Red Book says that the total is not expected to exceed £3 million.
The sum of £36,000 would pay for two years' long-term residential care. The statistics suggest that, because of other changes that have been made to support independent living at home, most people are in residential care for between 18 months and two years. If that was the purpose of the annuity, it is a mean measure. This matter is part of the portfolio of the Minister responsible for pensions. If we divide £3 million by the £9,600 tax relief, we realise that only a few hundred people will benefit from that relief for long-term care purposes. If that is the direction that the Government wish to take on long-term care for the elderly, they should come out and say so, instead of hiding it in the last two lines of a page in the Red Book. Only 400 people will benefit from that measure, at a cost of £6,900 each to the Treasury, when thousands could benefit. The grief caused to families who have to sell their houses could be reduced, too. There is a need to develop better strategies for the elderly to pay for long-term care, and I would like the Minister to comment on that.
The Minister talked about big ideas, while admitting that they are actually fairly modest. We have asked whether those ideas will help retired people. The Government did their biggest damage to pensions provision when they withdrew advance corporation tax; that stealth tax is beginning to hit people's pockets. We see local authorities report, week after week, on how much damage it is doing to their pension funds. The Minister probably thinks that that does not matter because the poor council tax payers will not notice that particular increase amid the other increases to their council tax, and the local authority pensions funds will be topped up.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) said, that measure is now hitting the people with Tesco pensions. From April, people who have been paying 3.75 per cent. of their salary into the Tesco pension plan will pay 4.25 per cent. Not only Tesco, but company after company will be affected. The withdrawal of ACT will have such an effect on our economy that what the Government really intend, and what they are about, will at long last hit home to people. It will also have a fundamental effect on pension funds; the more politicians meddle in pension funds, the less people want to get involved in them.
276WH
Mr. Additional Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just Mr. Deputy Speaker will do.
Mrs. Lait: Government stealth taxes are working their way through the pensions system. The Minister has admitted that the pension reforms are modest. We have an increasing number of pensioners, and at the next election the Government will have to answer to them.
3.48 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to address several aspects of the Minister's speech, and to develop some thoughts about how we could reform the pensions system. In such a debate, it is right that we focus both on today's pensioners and on tomorrow's. It is a good time to debate these matters; it is a couple of days after the Budget, and few days before the Report stage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. We have already heard the Minister and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) discuss some of the points that I will raise.
There are 10.5 million pensioners in this country, and there is no such thing as an average pensioner. There is a wide range, from the very poor to the extremely wealthy. No single figure can tell the truth about pensioners' incomes and life experiences. The poorest two fifths of single pensioners live on incomes of less than £93 per week, while the richest one fifth of pensioners live on incomes of more than £205 a week. Comparing those figures to the mean—£129—gives us some idea of how the distribution works out in practice. Averages are useful, but they are all too often misleading about the reality of pensioners' incomes.
There are equivalent figures for couples. The poorest two fifths of pensioners receive about £158 a week per couple, and the top fifth's income is £436 per couple. The mean is about £248. Again, the distribution works very much against the poorest pensioners. Clearly, there is a significant gulf between the wealth of a few and the poverty and straitened circumstances of many. As contributors to this debate have said, pensioners' incomes have increased. Between 1979 and 1997, the increase was 62 per cent. However, that figure hides an awful lot of differences. While the richest saw their incomes go up by 85 per cent.—£87 a week—the poorest fifth of pensioners saw theirs go up by just 22 per cent., or £10 a week. In other words, the poorest pensioners were only £10 better off after 18 years of Conservative rule.
Seven out of 10 pensioners rely on state benefits for half their income, and almost two in 10 depend wholly on state benefits. Undoubtedly, the wide coverage of occupational pensions, and their increasing use, has done much to boost pensioner incomes. However, as the figures reveal, many people who retire today face a bleak prospect on very low incomes. What is the Government's response? Let us deal with their immediate response, which is made principally through the basic state pension; I will deal with the minimum income guarantee shortly. From 1 April, the basic state pension will go up by 75p a week—at least in theory, as I will explain in a moment. Many people outside this Chamber will consider that increase an insult, and

277WH
inadequate to meet the costs that pensioners face. It will be largely—for many pensioners completely—consumed by council tax rises alone.
The increase in the basic state pension masks an even greater scandal: 25 per cent. of pensioners will not receive even the 75p increase in their basic state pension this year. They will not receive even 50p extra a week. One million married women with poor pension contributions records rely on their husbands to establish their record for the purposes of receiving pensions, and thus receive category B pensions of £39.95 a week. A further 1.5 million people—mostly women, mostly single women and widows—are in the same boat. For them, 1.1 per cent. is just 45p. What a bonanza for those pensioners.
The Government's response to the poorest pensioners is more means testing and the minimum income guarantee. However, between 400,000 and 700,000 people—about 37 per cent. of those entitled to the minimum income guarantee—do not claim it. We have heard a little about the Government's take-up campaign and we look forward to events over the next few days to see whether it will start before 3 April. The campaign must be welcomed, because it is essential that everyone who is entitled takes up his or her entitlement. Claiming the minimum income guarantee is not a cause for stigma or something that should be resisted. However, we must acknowledge that it is not being taken up.
Last year, the Department of Social Security commissioned a report called "Helping Pensioners: Contextual Survey of the Income Support Pilots". It is based on 10 pilots in various local authorities and makes interesting reading. It found that only four out of 10 pensioners said that they would definitely make a claim, and that 36 per cent. said that they would not make a claim. The reasons that they gave were stigma, uncertainty and an unwillingness to deal with the Benefits Agency. The report concluded:
Given the existing eligibility criteria for IS, the stock of IS ENRs—
what a piece of jargon—
is continually refreshing itself. Encouraging all pensioners entitled to IS to take up their entitlement will be difficult. Previous research has shown, for various reasons, that there is a group of pensioner IS ENRs who will resist such encouragement.
The report also concludes that a far more strategic approach will be needed than those adopted in previous take-up campaigns. We look forward to the Minister's outlining the strategic elements of the campaign to the House before 3 April.
I hope that the exchange about incentives to take-up that took place between the Minister and the hon. Member for Beckenham can be considered further. Is there any scope for recognising that an entitlement, once established, should attract some backdating of income support? Is it possible to use a device of that sort to provide an additional incentive to people who have not hitherto claimed, despite years of entitlement?
As the pension population grows and the gap between the minimum income guarantee and the basic state pension widens—the former being earnings indexed and the latter price indexed—more people will be caught in
278WH
the means-testing trap. That may present a disincentive for people to take out stakeholder pensions, or to make other provision.
Government research shows that women—especially older women—constitute the largest group of pensioners missing out on the minimum income guarantee. Furthermore, it is clear that the oldest pensioners are also the poorest. Liberal Democrats believe that there is a much more effective way of getting cash help to those most in need of it. We want the Government seriously to consider the reform and uprating of age additions to the basic state pension. That would remove the stigma, and avoid the bureaucracy and paraphernalia of a massive take-up campaign.
At present, the basic state pension pays an extra 25p a week at the age of 80. That has not been uprated since 1971. That would have been worth £3.70 today if it had been linked to earnings. The Liberal Democrats propose that it should be uprated to £5 a week, and that there should be a further age addition of £3 a week at the age of 75. If those proposals are taken together with our proposal for a general uprating of £2 for the basic state pension this year—rather than the £2 proposed for next year by the Chancellor in his Budget statement—the oldest pensioners would receive an increase this year at double the rate of earnings.
Such an increase could be afforded. For the purposes of the Budget, the Chancellor raided the budget of the Department of Social Security to the tune of £2 billion. That would be more than enough to meet the cost of our proposals. However, the Government prefer a tax cut to the payment of a decent pension. Consequently, the old will, in many ways, be paying for the sick in future.
I turn briefly to the pensioners of tomorrow. SERPS will affect future pensioners as well as those already drawing pensions. It is a scandal that the plans to halve widows' inheritance rights, introduced by the Conservatives in 1986, went unpublicised until 1996. The reports of the National Audit Office and the parliamentary ombudsman make depressing and disturbing reading. They tell of a systemic failure by the Department of Social Security to translate policy into practice, or to recognise trouble when the alarm bells began to ring. The NAO report, published in 2000, found that there were still problems. It is interesting to note the results of its survey work. Paragraph 1.20 states:
In March 1999 the Benefits Agency reviewed what information a sample of 23 offices across the country had provided. This found that in 14 offices staff would have provided incorrect advice, and in one other, some, but not all, staff would have done so. In another office, staff provided incorrect information until early 1998, when a customer advised them of the change.
That is not the way in which this system should operate. Customers should not have to notify the staff of the Benefits Agency of changes to benefits. It is crucial that that does not happen again. I am pleased to see the Government's proposals to address that issue.
It is worth quoting what the Secretary of State said on 15 March about the inherited SERPS scheme, because it is an important part of the way in which the scheme will work. He said:
People will be required to give us information on how they were misled when they make a claim, and we shall, of course, ask them questions about that when we process the claim. However, if there

279WH
is no documentary evidence, it will be for the Department to challenge or disprove the claim.—[Official Report, 15 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 312.]
That is fine, and one can understand why the Government wish to approach the matter in that way, although we may wish to challenge them in debate in due course. The Secretary of State went on to tell the House that an advertisment setting out the plans would be placed in many of our reputable journals, but I fear that it will sow yet more confusion, because it says:
To put this right we are introducing a scheme that will protect the rights of those SERPS contributors who can show that they were given wrong information about their entitlement and who as a consequence may have made different choices about their finances if they had known about the change to SERPS.
At best, that is ambiguous, at worst misleading. Surely the Government want to maximise the number of people making inquiries, instead of compounding the Conservative Government's errors. I hope that all literature will be fully market-tested with those who will respond to it, to ensure that it is understandable to all of us, not just to some. The NAO report says that about 3 million misleading leaflets were issued between 1986 and 1996. There is no way of knowing how many people read those leaflets.
I was interested in what the Minister said about rolling out the take-up campaign. The Government will write to 2 million people to encourage them to apply for the minimum income guarantee. We welcome that proactive approach. Why can there not be a similar approach to SERPS mis-selling? Why cannot the Government write to those who may have been affected?
In Committee, the Minister, the hon. Member for Beckenham and I grappled with the detail of the state second pension for what seemed like months, but was in fact merely weeks. Its principles and objectives are welcome, particularly in respect of carers, because it is the first time that a pensions benefit values the role and unpaid work of carers. However, the important principle that carers' work will be recognised by ensuring that they will have a pension in later life is let down by some of the Bill's details and the practice that will flow from them.
If the new pension entitlement is targeted through the invalid care allowance, hundreds of thousands of carers will be excluded from the state second pension. Some 370,000 carers receive ICA, but 855,000 people provide more than 50 hours of care a week. Entitlement to the state second pension for carers should not hinge on another person's attendance allowance claim: it should be a clear and unambiguous entitlement for the carer.
Questions arise about pensions provision when I meet carers in my constituency—at our carer centre or the Sutton carers forum. Carers want to know about the state second pension, and are shocked and dismayed to learn that they will not all receive it because of the rules that will underpin it. People who have spent years caring will not have them counted for the scheme. More than 120,000 people have received ICA for five years or more, and 32,000 of them have received it for more than 10 years—10 years of care that will go unacknowledged in the new scheme. The Government should backdate national insurance credits in some way, to reduce the number of carers left in poverty in retirement.
280WH
The Government talk about the entitlement to national insurance credits for state second pension where a person is in receipt of ICA throughout the year. I shall not go into that in detail today, because we explored it ad nauseam in Committee, but carers who, through no fault of their own, have broken ICA records will lose out. The Government rightly targeted respite care in the national carers strategy, to give carers a break from caring, but their plans run counter to that, and that must be avoided at all costs.
Because of the linking rules, carers become disentitled to ICA when someone has been in care for 28 days. That must be borne in mind when the new pension is rolled out. Similarly, if the ICA earnings limit rules remain as at present, ICA is reduced pound for pound when earnings exceed £50, so no contributions are made to national insurance for the state second pension. The Government cannot want that. A carer could lose a whole year's contributions to the state second pension. The proposals will not make a difference to many of my constituents who are carers.
Will the Government consider recognising and valuing carers through an increase in the ICA generally or, if that is not affordable, by extending it to pensioners, many of whom feel aggrieved when they do not qualify for ICA, despite having heavy caring duties? I hope that the Government will consider that idea seriously.
I had hoped to spend some time debating the Conservative party's emerging and evolving plans for pensions. Some hon. Members will have read with interest in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago the trailing of an important speech by the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, and we wait with bated breath to hear the direction in which the Conservative party proposes to take us. The Daily Telegraph reported that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) seemed to be suggesting ways in which it might be possible for people voluntarily to opt out of the basic state pension, and it would have been interesting to hear more about that. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not deliver his speech in this country. He got on an aeroplane and flew to New York to deliver it. Following persistent attempts by my office to obtain it from the Library and from his office, I understand that the speech is still being typed, so we cannot test those emerging policy ideas.
I want to spend a few moments discussing tax—a matter that has an impact on the income of many pensioners and on which reform is necessary. The low income tax reform group of the Chartered Institute of Taxation has done much good work in promoting the cause of older people and the impact on them of the tax system. I want to refer to two issues: the age gap and the bureaucracy trap.
First, with the abolition of the married couple's allowance from 6 April this year, new anomalies will enter the tax system, particularly in its impact on older people. Let us consider two male twins, the older born on 5 April 1935 and the younger on 6 April 1935. Before the changes, both would have expected to receive the higher rate of married couple's allowance, but only the older will now receive it. Assuming that both twins live for many more years, their annual tax calculations will be different even if they have exactly the same income. How can the creation of such an anomaly help older people? The situation gets worse. Let us assume that the

281WH
twins had not married, but in 10 years marry wives younger than themselves. Only the older twin would receive the married couple's allowance. If they marry older women, both would receive the allowance. Treasury Ministers will have to answer constituency inquiries about that, and I hope that they have good explanations. I do not, and I think that the proposal is madness.
The second issue is the bureaucracy trap. Many pensioners who fall below the tax threshold are regularly pursued and worried by the taxman. The solution is simple—a tax exemption certificate. That would spare lower-income pensioners the need to communicate with the taxman and all the form filling that that entails. I hope that such a simple proposal could be embraced, even at this late stage, when the Finance Bill makes its way through the House.
For many of today's pensioners, reality is a life not of wealth and plenty, but of thrift and hardship. More can and should be done for them. The state pension is welcomed for tomorrow's pensioners, but we must question whether travelling 50 years into the future to realise a modest and temporary boost to pension income is a lost opportunity. The Liberal Democrats will try to put that right during the passage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill over the next few weeks.
4.9 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). His speech could have been entitled "In Praise of Older Women", because he seemed to see a certain advantage in that direction. I agree that we must consider the distinction between pension provision for those who are in work and several years from pensionable age, and that for those who already receive, or will soon receive, state pensions or occupational pensions. The phrase "tomorrow's pensioners" is not quite right, because those who will soon be pensioners face the same problems as those who already are.
Before I go too far in that direction, I want to make some positive points—as would rightly be expected of me—about the Government's pensions policies thus far. The winter fuel payment, which is equivalent to a pension payment and will add £3 per week to the basic pension, has been handled very well. I suppose that a possible precursor was the £10 payment to which Sir Alec Douglas-Home referred as a donation. As a result of that condescending and charitable tone, he became embroiled in difficulties. I am pleased to say that the winter fuel payment, which will be a permanent entitlement, is in a different category. It is particularly astute because it is paid to the pensioner household in winter, when pensioners must spend money on heating and Christmas. Christmas is an expensive time for everyone, but particularly for those on limited fixed incomes.
More credit than has perhaps been given is also due to the Government for the introduction from this autumn of free television licences for those aged over 75. Television is often the main form of entertainment for
282WH
many people, but particularly older people. Those who have difficulty getting out and about find it difficult to access alternative forms of entertainment, which in any case often do not exist. Perhaps we should be more positive in rebutting—to use a Millbank word—the criticism that the concession will not be made available to those aged, say, 65 or 60. As with all such matters, the first small step is the beginning of the longest journey. The Government have made a substantial stride, and I hope that younger pensioners will be granted the concession in the not too distant future.
My right hon. Friend the Minister dwelt at length on the minimum income guarantee. I hope he will not object to my saying that he makes a slight error in continually referring to it as MIG, which in most people's minds is a Russian fighter plane. If we want to encourage people to understand what is on offer, we should at least describe it as the minimum income guarantee. However, perhaps we should have chosen a name that relates directly to pensions, such as the minimum pension assurance. That is merely a suggestion, but what is on offer should be made abundantly clear. Notwithstanding that criticism, the minimum income guarantee will benefit today's pensioners greatly. In the period to which the Chancellor referred, it will rise from £75 to £78, and subsequently to £82.
I was a little concerned by a point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). She said that increasing the minimum income guarantee might deter others from taking out stakeholder pensions, the suggestion being that one need not do so if there are increases in the minimum income guarantee. That may be arithmetically correct, but there is a dangerous implication.
Mrs. Lait: Would the hon. Gentleman make the state second pension or stakeholder pension compulsory?
Mr. Hurst: There may well be a good case for doing so. The difficulty with the hon. Lady's argument is that it suggests that we should not increase the minimum income guarantee because that would have an adverse affect on tomorrow's pensions. However, I am not sure that she drew that conclusion. The logic of that argument is to suggest that today's pensioners should pay to encourage tomorrow's pensioners, but I am not convinced that that is the right approach.
The greatest cheer that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor received during last year's Budget came when he announced the minimum income guarantee and said that it would be linked to average earnings. I was not the only Government Back Bencher who fleetingly believed that there would be a restoration of the link between the basic pension and earnings. However, like a March mist, the proposal drifted away. Notwithstanding that, the link is useful. The minimum income guarantee is increasing in line with national prosperity. For many years, the pensions debate has focused on what is called the restoration of the earnings link.
I delved back to the time of Mr. Wilson's Governments during the 1970s—the Minister may have spoken in pensions debates at that time—and found that the formula was established in line with the phrase,

283WH
"Wages or prices, whichever was more favourable to the recipient". We have concluded over the years that wages are always more favourable to the recipient than prices, but it was wise to involve an alternative. Unfortunately, Mrs. Thatcher's Government decided to remove the benefit, and it is always much harder to bring something back once it has gone.
Books on pensions estimate how much it would cost to reintroduce the benefit, but the figures vary enormously, depending on whether one listens to Baroness Castle. Enormous sums would be involved if one backdated the benefit—I am told that if it were backdated to 1980, it would cost in the region of £11 billion or £12 billion per annum.
We could consider a more modest proposal, namely to raise the basic state pension to £75 or £78 per week, and to continue the link thereafter using the formula set out in the 1970s. Pensioners often suggest that. Hon. Members who talk to older people's groups in their constituencies know that they want a basic state pension that preserves their dignity. They do not want endless means testing.
Stakeholder pensions and private pension schemes may be attractive to younger people, who can plan ahead for their future, but older people cannot rewrite their personal history. From our current position, it is easy to look back and say, "If only I had taken out a sensible pension when I was 23, and not spent my money on A, B or C." Many of today's pensioners did not have the opportunity to establish substantial pensions for themselves. They should not be expected to suffer until such time as the stakeholder private industrial pension system, which is currently being contemplated, catches up with the next generation.
I was encouraged when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred in the Budget to pensioner credit and mentioned the sums of £100 and £150. It is early days for such schemes. The consultation is welcome, and may yield considerable benefits.
In preparing for the debate, I looked back to the origins of old-age pensions in this country, specifically David Lloyd George's Old Age Pensions Act 1908. His most famous defence of that measure was his speech to thousands of cheering Cockneys at Limehouse. That was when the phrase "Limehousing" came into use, at least in the Conservative party, as a term of abuse for those who sought to promote social policies at the expense of the better-off.
Re-reading Lloyd George's speech, I realised how much more colourful—and MIG-free—was the enunciation of policies in those days. Describing the pension scheme, he said:
it is rather a shame for a rich country like ours—that it should allow those who toiled all their days to end in penury and possible starvation. It is rather hard that an old workman should have to find his way to the gates of the tomb bleeding and footsore, through the brambles and thorns of poverty. We have cut a new path through it, an easier one, a pleasanter one, through fields of waving corn.
There is no doubt that he had a way with words, but the proposal was more limited than his oration might suggest. A person had to reach the age of 70—one should bear in mind the lower life expectancy at that time—to have been a British citizen for 20 years and to be of good character, which would be a
284WH
recommendation in the eyes of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Provided that people met those qualifications, and that their income was no more than £21 per annum, they would be entitled to an old age pension of 5 shillings per week.
That sounds very modest, and it is beyond me why the Conservative party got so terribly worked up about it at the time. However, its importance lies in the fact that it set us on the route that led on through Beveridge, to the legislation of the 1970s and to where we are today. Proposals that appear modest may open up great opportunities for pension improvement, so that not only future pensioners, but those of today, can enjoy rising prosperity.
Although I have an open goal until 5.15 pm, I do not intend to take advantage of it. My final point is that the national minimum wage gives support to the pensioners' case for more substantial current pensions, because it recognises that there is a standard of living below which our citizens should not fall. Pensioners groups do not say that state pensions should be treated in the same way as the national minimum wage—clearly, different calculations are necessary, involving people in different circumstances and age groups.
The minimum wage recognises that there is a standard of living below which people should not fall. Although the Government are, to some extent, taking that approach with the minimum income guarantee, I have made no secret in my remarks of the fact that I would like to see a more substantial basic state pension. We should be more cautious about believing that the private sector can always make better provision than the state. I understand that the national insurance fund has a substantial surplus. Although that obviously cannot be spent all at once—there would not be many more tomorrows if it were—it gives room for manoeuvre. I wish the Government well in their consultations on the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this week.
4.24 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I shall try to respond to all the points that have been raised, and shall be happy to write to hon. Members about any that I do not cover. I do not make that offer every time because hon. Members can always return to matters on other occasions. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), these are important issues. One of the purposes of these debates is to help the Government. The greater the flow of information, the more likely it is that we will get it right in the future and avoid problems such as mis-selling and mis-advertising.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), especially for the Lloyd George quote. I would like to use that quote, as, I suspect, would some of our friends down at Millbank. Those were colourful days. My hon. Friend finished by mentioning the national insurance fund surplus, which is substantial and healthy. We must always remember that the surplus is not a pot of money—it is not cash—and only represents the difference between two extremely large figures. Therefore, a shift in the economy could wipe it out. Anything that we do on pensions lasts for ever—once the pension is changed, it must be transferred

285WH
through the generations of a working life. That is one of the problems in terms of making calculations. The surplus is a seductive argument, but it does not work. Putting £1 on the pension today will cost £7 billion in 10 years' time. That indicates the scale of the Government Actuary's calculations.
Although my hon. Friend did not use the phrase himself, a couple of his examples brought to mind the phrase "thin end of the wedge". The door is open on certain issues, even though progress might be slow. The television licence is a good example. The Government's proposal for free television licences for those aged 75 plus applies to all households with someone over 75, which is a wide provision. There will be many households in which people under 75 live with someone over 75. The person over 75 must be the licence holder. It is the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to guide legislation through the House to deliver that policy, because a power will be necessary to request from my Department the names and addresses of everybody over 75. Data protection legislation does not allow us to provide such information willy-nilly. The 75-year old threshold will be dealt with in later regulations, but it will be easier to campaign for change once payment has started. That is the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, although it has not worked in terms of the Christmas bonus or the additional 25p for those aged over 80, which have been frozen for years. I do not want to raise hopes, but my hon. Friend's point was that the first step is crucial.
As for the minimum income guarantee, its title was not invented by the Department of Social Security. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave it that title, and we are sticking to it. It might be a good idea not to call it that, but that is what it will be marketed as. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the winter fuel payment. It is now a reasonable amount, which is paid in cash before Christmas. A date will be chosen in September, as was the case last year. It is done so far in advance because it takes 10 weeks to print the giros. I regret that, but the objective is to ensure that the money is in people's hands before Christmas. We also have to work on the basis of arranging back pay.
I shall run through some of the matters raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree mentioned the cost of linking the basic state pension with average earnings, which would be £1 billion net in 2000, rising to £7.5 billion in 2010. An increase in the basic state pension and linked benefits to the minimum income guarantee level for April would cost £4 billion net in 2000–01. It would not help the poorest pensioners who are on MIG. Simply raising the basic state pension when the MIG exists would mean that the poorest were not well targeted.
In due course, the Government will introduce regulations for a protected rights scheme in respect of inherited SERPs. It would be impractical to write to all SERPs contributors since 1978, as there are more than 20 million of them—the National Audit Office does not recommend it. There will be initial press advertisements and a substantial programme of advertising to inform people who have lost out because of maladministration.
Mr. Burstow: I want to pursue the matter of the advertisements, which I understand are only the early
286WH
stages of a wider campaign. Can the Minister say whether the initial advertisements were checked to ensure that they would be understood by potential readers? If not, will that be done before future advertising materials are drafted?
Mr. Booker: It will certainly be the case for future advertisements because we shall consult bodies such as Age Concern and Help the Aged. The Social Security Advisory Committee will advise on DSS leaflets and when possible they will be approved by the Plain English campaign.
It is early days; we have to put together a protected rights scheme, and broad-brush decisions were taken only last week. I do not accept that the advertisements are misleading; people will have to tell us if they have lost out. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) quoted the statement last week that the burden of proof will be on the Government. However, at the end of the day, people will have to sign a form claiming benefit and stating that the information that they give is truthful and correct.
Reports last week showed some of the worst maladministration since the war; they were devastating in revealing the lackadaisical machinery of government and how the errors came about. No person or section was to blame; the villain was a massive failure of the Government machine, and we must ensure that that does not occur again, in the Department or anywhere else.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) referred to the setting up of a new, discrete pensions body outside the Benefits Agency but under the control of the DSS, to deal with everything relating to present and future pensioners, pensions policy, legislation, leaflets and information. It would include face-to-face contact with pensioners, to ensure that such mistakes cannot happen again.
Mrs. Lait: The right hon. Gentleman may know that I am keen that the pensions ombudsman and OPRA —the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority—should join the other financial products organisations under the Financial Services Authority. Could it work the other way? Could the personal pensions ombudsman come under the aegis of the new pensions body, so that one maladministration monitor deals with all the pensions?
Mr. Rooker: I shall put that off until Report. The hon. Lady has tabled amendments and new clauses, which I shall be required to respond to on Report. Clearly, she has plans for merging different parts of the machinery and we can debate that more fully on Report than we can today.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned retrospection. It is a major problem and we debated it in Committee with respect to carers. I repeat the positive point that 2 million people will gain from the changes. I regret that it is impossible to fix a date for carers in the past; we do not have enough information. However, as I said, there will be a further opportunity to debate the matter on Report.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about people who become 65 after the cut-off date, potentially losing tax relief worth about £500. Nobody receiving age-related

287WH
additions before April will lose them; they will continue into the next financial year for the foreseeable future. He made an interesting point about twins. Our computer systems can be pretty useless, but they are not too bad on dates of birth. I would be interested to know if there is a single example in the entire country of twins, one of whom was born on 5 April and the other on 6 April 1935. It would be most interesting if there were. If so, it would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it is a tax, not a pension matter. We may find out in due course.
The hon. Member for Beckenham referred to advance corporation tax changes and cited Tesco. As we have said before, the changes were intended to stop companies paying out dividends when it would be better to invest the money back into the industry. Notwithstanding the hon. Lady's example, by and large, the returns on pensions have been extremely good. The measure was part of a wider package of economic reforms and was intended to encourage companies to retain money for investment rather than pay out dividends. The hon. Lady knows what that was about. We need a strong economy. The basic state pension is the foundation of our system. Relying on the private sector could be problematic if the economic environment necessary for the private sector to provide the benefits of occupational pensions is not sustained.
Mrs. Lait: We agree on the need for a strong economy in order to grow. That is precisely my point. Taking £5 billion out of the pensions system was not a reflection of the Government's policy, but a product of the growth of the world economy, within which the UK is growing, but not as well as the American economy. The ACT change did not generate growth in the UK economy; growth happened because of trends in the world economy.
Mr. Rooker: I did not say or imply that; the hon. Lady takes us to another debate. Her point does not relate to pensions reform. That is the problem.
The hon. Lady asked a specific question about thresholds for the state second pension, but I thought that I had answered it previously. I always said that the £9,500 applied to the year 1999–2000. When the pension comes in, whenever that is, the figure will be revalued from the point at which we announced it. If it takes two or three years to come in, there will be two or three years' revaluation to make the figure correct. If I have not made that clear in the past, I do so now. If the pension started in April 2002, the low earnings threshold of £9,500 would have three years' worth of uprating from the date it was announced.
Mr. Burstow: The Minister is right. I recall him dealing with that in some detail in Committee. I have a related question concerning the roll-out of state second pension and his comments about MIG and the interplay between the two. Will he confirm that while most of the examples based on retirement at 2050 show that the basic state pension plus state second pension are equal to or greater than MIG, by the time most pensioners reach 80, they will back on MIG?
Mr. Rooker: No, I do not accept that.
288WH
This is my final point and it relates to exchange between the hon. Member for Beckenham and one of her hon. Friends. As I have repeatedly said, MIG is part of the income support system. It is means-tested, not on a person, but in most respects on a couple. MIG and income support for a couple are not twice, but about one and a half times the rate for a single person. For example, a couple who have had work experience, possibly interrupted at some stage, one of them on a stakeholder pension and the other on state second pension, will be way over MIG when they retire. They would not then be subject to the means test on their savings and the other matters.
Financial journalists who insist on using the example of a single person, as opposed to a couple with a state second pension and a stakeholder pension, give a misleading picture. I know that not everyone is part of a couple, but the caveat must be entered that MIG is means-tested. The rate for a couple is not twice the rate for a single person and the figures are different in many respects. Couples could be way over MIG for a decade and a half or more after they retire. It depends on what they retired on, what their earnings have been and for how many years their contributions were interrupted. One cannot give a guarantee about this, but I gave the Committee some examples of people who would be well over MIG at the point they retired and would not fall back on it for 15 or 16 years. I accept that it would be less in other circumstances.
Mr. Burstow: The examples that the Minister referred to showed that, by the age of 80, many pensioners would need to turn to the Benefits Agency to seek MIG. Does that not underline the case for increasing the age addition to the basic state pension?
Mr. Rooker: I cannot accept that, although I also cannot write the scenarios for 50 years' time. The previous Administration's policy was to raise pensions only in line with prices. However, that did not happen during their 18-year term, because pensions increased by more than prices. The policy enunciation was prices for the one and earnings for the other. All our answers in future have to be formulated on that basis because there is no other way to project.
My final, final point is that I am unaware of anything that I said that could have caused anyone concern when I attended the Pensions Management Institute conference at the Hilton hotel in Park lane yesterday. I said virtually the same as I have said today about the mis-selling of stakeholder pensions—if that was what the hon. Lady was referring to—and about the survey that was done by Money Marketing, not by the Government. The firms are named in the survey. I have said today that the regulator, the Financial Services Authority, will, rightly, watch to make sure that there is no mis-selling of pensions, and, if it occurs, we shall clamp down on it at the first opportunity. Firms will no longer have any excuse for it because they have seen our draft regulations, which are in the public domain for consultation. I deplore the idea that firms might knowingly and wilfully be mis-selling. It is not good enough, and the FSA should do everything that it can to put a stop to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Five o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Internet
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what incentives his Department plans to introduce to encourage less expensive methods of access to the Internet for(a) small businesses and (b) home users; and if he will make a statement. [116049]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government believe that the best way to encourage the provision of low-cost Internet access is by encouraging competition. The success of this policy was shown recently with the announcement by several companies of free or nearly free Internet access packages (including no per minute call charges).

  Longbridge
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made following his meeting with Alchemy of the number of jobs expected to be lost at Longbridge. [115836]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: Alchemy were unable to give an indication of employment levels.

CABINET OFFICE

  National Training Organisation
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made towards establishing the central Government national training organisation; and if she will make a statement. [116120]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Central Government National Training Organisation was launched today. The Government made a commitment to establish a National Training Organisation for the civil service in the Modernising Government White Paper.

  The CGNTO aims to:

  Make a reality of the civil services's commitment to lifelong learning and employability;

  identifying training, development and learning needs for the majority of civil servants;

  develop a strategy to address those needs, ensuring that this reflects the Modernising Government Agenda;

  raise standards of training, development and learning across Central Government;

  provide a means of learning from and with other sectors, through NTO network.

  Civil Service
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what research the Cabinet Office has undertaken into equality proofing of performance management in the civil service. [116121]
  614W
  Mr. Stringer
  I have today published a research report by the Institute for Employment Studies on Equality Proofing of Performance Review in the civil service.

  The research was commissioned across 13 representative civil service Departments and Agencies last autumn following concerns about imbalances in performance markings between different groups of staff. This study, and the action to be taken as a result, further underlines the commitment of the civil service to make real progress on diversity.

  I have placed copies of the IES report in the Libraries of the House.

DEFENCE

  BAe Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the BAe Systems contract for an urgent operational requirement in-theatre communications system is intended to replace the current system; what impact it will have on the security of communications of UK forces' security in Kosovo; what is the estimated cost of the system; and if he will make a statement. [113909]

  Mr. Spellar
  The contract with BAe Systems will provide for wide area communications in support of the UK's contribution to the NATO Multi Divisions in Bosnia and Kosovo. The contract is specific to the Balkans and does not affect the Army's other general and much larger and technically more complex communications requirements, such as Project BOWMAN. It will replace the current wide area systems in the Balkans, including Project PTARMIGAN, and allow them to be redistributed for use in other theatres of operations. In addition, the Army's commitment to operations in the Balkans will be reduced by some 260 Royal Signals soldiers by the end of this year. Of these, around 150 will return and others who were preparing for deployment will not go. Both the soldiers and current wide area systems, which will become available for future tasking, are in high demand by Army commanders.

  The contract will provide the backbone of a communications network, including voice, data and facsimile links within the Balkans and back to the UK. The system will maintain the level of security of the communications of UK forces by segregating secure UK traffic from secure NATO traffic and unclassified UK traffic. The contract with BAe Systems is worth up to £23 million and the estimated cost of the entire system is some £25 million (exclusive of VAT).

  RN Vessels
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the status of HMS Kent; when she will be ready for service; what are the causes and cost of the delays; and if he will make a statement. [114764]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  615W
  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 23 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the status of HMS KENT; when she will be ready for service; what are the causes and costs of the delays; and if he will make a statement. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  HMS KENT is currently undergoing post-build weapons trials and safety training. The ship will become operational on 13 December 2000. There has been no delay to this date which has been the basis for planning since construction began.
  During the build of such a complex ship it is not unusual for minor changes to requirements and timings to be made. HMS KENT was built with a new bridge layout, but during Contractor's Sea Trials, options to improve the functionality of the bridge were identified and subsequently contracted for at a cost of £715K. Despite this extra work, HMS KENT was delivered to the Royal Navy by the contractor (now BAE SYSTEMS) on 9 February 2000, ahead of the scheduled Contract Acceptance Date of 8 March 2000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of producing the RV 'Trinton'; when she will begin sea trials; when she will be put into service; what her mission will be; and if he will make a statement. [115745]

  Dr. Moonie
  RV 'Triton' is currently being built by Vosper Thorneycroft at Southampton. The cost of the ship is approximately £13.5 million, which is being funded by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).

  RV 'Triton' will start contractor sea trials in July of this year and will be delivered later in the autumn to begin two years of sea trials to evaluate the hullform as a contender for future warship designs. On completion of the first two years' trials, the ship's role will be as a trials facility to test and evaluate at sea many different equipments and systems, either commercial or military. As a trials platform, RV 'Triton' will be owned by DERA and will not 'enter service' with the Royal Navy in the military use of the phase.

  Sea Eagle Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department plans to do with its stock of Sea Eagle missiles after they have been removed from service; and if he will make a statement. [115752]

  Dr. Moonie
  Sea Eagle missiles were removed from Royal Navy and Royal Air Force service in April 1999. The missile systems are currently being collected in central locations prior to disposal action being initiated. No final decisions have yet been made about the disposal of the weapons.

  M-1 Submarine
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if permission has been given to dive to the shipwreck of the experimental submarine M-1. [115704]

  Dr. Moonie
  No permission is required to undertake diving on the wreck of the experimental submarine M-1.

  War Graves
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) steps he has taken and (b) plans he has to tighten control of (i) unlicensed diving on war graves and (ii) pillaging of naval wrecks. [115705]
  616W
  Dr. Moonie
  My Department, together with others and Diving Associations, has been assisting with the development of a Code of Practice for diving on wrecks. It is hoped that this code will be introduced shortly. Following its introduction, the impact of this code will be assessed. I am able to report that the Ministry of Defence Police have recently charged a man with theft from a war grave and this case is proceeding through the courts. We will take action through the courts wherever appropriate.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) name and (b) location of the shipwreck war graves on which permission has been given to dive in the past 12 months. [115703]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not necessary for divers to obtain permission from my Department in order to dive on wrecks.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) applications have been made to and (b) permissions have been given in the last 12 months by his Department to dive on undersea war graves (i) in the Dardanelles, (ii) off Singapore and (iii) elsewhere. [115702]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not necessary for divers to obtain permission from my Department to dive on undersea war graves.

  Annual Leave Review
  Mr. DuncanSmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's review of the rules relating to annual leave for non-industrial civil servants will report; what the terms of reference of the review are; and if he will publish the results of the review. [115922]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is not undertaking a formal review of annual leave arrangements for its civilian staff. All conditions of service are kept under regular scrutiny and changes made as appropriate to meet statutory and Departmental requirements. We are currently looking at the provisions for various forms of special leave (paid and unpaid) to see if any changes are necessary.

  Submarine Research (Goats)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many goats have had to be killed on humane grounds after being used in the submarine escape and rescue research programme in the last six months; and if he will make a statement; [115812]

  (2) if goats that fail to respond to training for the submarine escape and rescue research programme are culled; and if he will make a statement. [115811]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  617W
  Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 23 March 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your two questions on the use of goats in DERA's submarine escape and rescue research programme. I will answer both questions in this letter.
  You asked whether goats that fail to respond to training for the research programme are culled. In fact, the training for the animals is very effective and no animal has ever failed to respond. Training consists of familiarising the animals with the environment where they will be used. This not only minimises the stress to the animals but also improves the quality of the research by ensuring that the research results are unaffected by additional factors such as the animals being handled by people not known to them.
  Your second question asked how many goats have been killed on humane grounds in the last six months. The numbers are as follows:

  Date

  Number of goats

  1999

  September

  3

  October

  0

  November

  12

  December

  0

  2000

  January

  8

  February

  7

  March

  0

  Specialists advise that any experimental use is likely to cause some stress to animals and it is, therefore, preferable in most cases that the animals be killed humanely on completion of the experiment. This action is included in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Laboratories can, however, request to re-use animals or to retire stock to the 'field'. This is usually only permitted where the laboratory can demonstrate, with verification by a veterinary surgeon, to the Home Office that the animals have not suffered any lasting harm.
  Prior to re-use in the submarine escape and rescue programme the animals are all inspected by a veterinary surgeon. If an animal is found to be unfit it is humanely killed. Additionally, the veterinary surgeon, the scientists conducting the research and the Home Office have agreed limits to the experiments, based on signs of distress in the animals. If these limits are approached during the experiment the animal will be humanely killed at that point. The veterinary surgeon and the named animal care and welfare officer have unrestricted access to the experiments and can instruct the termination of an experiment at any time.
  I hope this is helpful.

  RAF Halton
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy for effecting the disposal of the families quarters at RAF Halton which are surplus. [115980]

  Dr. Moonie
  A number of surplus Families' Quarters at RAF Halton were sold to Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) in November 1996 with the bulk of the Married Quarters Estate in England and Wales. Under the terms of the sale agreement MOD is committed to releasing a number of surplus properties to AHL for disposal. Any further surplus properties at RAF Halton will also be released to AHL, and 82 properties have been identified for disposal in this way over the coming months.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the locations of the families' quarters at RAF Halton which are surplus. [115988]
  618W
  Dr. Moonie
  The surplus properties at RAF Halton are in the area known as the Hospital Site. The road names are:

  Hospital Circular Road

  Longcroft Avenue

  Lambe Road

  Babington Road

  Trenchard Avenue.

  Eighty of these properties are already void and will go back to Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) for disposal under the terms of the contract agreed with the Ministry of Defence at the time of the sale of the Families' Quarters Estate. Two further properties are currently used for purposes other than housing and will also be offered to Annington Homes for disposal in due course.

  Land Assets
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what land and property his Department owns in Torquay. [116198]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is only one property owned by the Ministry of Defence in Torquay. This is the Army Careers Information Office, 180 Union Street, Torquay.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Unification of Europe (Commemoration)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the Commissioners' policy in respect of making use of resources in combination with other churches to commemorate the unification of Europe. [115563]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners are required by statute to use their income for the stipends, pensions and housing of clergy of the Church of England. Their funds are therefore fully committed and are not generally available for other purposes.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Humber Bridge
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on imposing VAT on tolls, with particular reference to the Humber Bridge. [114899]

  Mr. Hill
  VAT is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government have opposed the imposition of VAT on all tolled crossings, not just the Humber Bridge. Whether or not VAT applies to tolls is to be subject of a judgment of the European Court expected this summer.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the level of debt on the Humber Bridge at the end of April 1997; and how much of the debt has been(a) written off and (b) rescheduled since that date. [114900]
  619W
  Mr. Hill
  Of the debt of £359,307,192 at the end of April 1997, some £62 million owed by the Humber Bridge Board to the Public Works Loan Board was written off in July 1998. Of the balance, some £240 million owed to the Secretary of State was rescheduled and, on the remainder, interest charges were reduced.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much revenue was received by the Treasury from tolls on the Humber Bridge for each of the last five years. [114898]

  Mr. Hill
  The Humber Bridge Board have made the following payments into the consolidated fund as recorded in the Appropriation Accounts:

  Year

  £

  1994–95

  41,473,000

  1995–96

  41,473,000

  1996–97

  41,473,000

  1997–98

  41,473,000

  1998–99

  14,149,000

  The figures for the first four years mainly include grant payments to cover interest that would not otherwise have been met since the bulk of the operating surplus was used to meet interest charges and capital repayments of debts owed to the Public Works Loans Board. Net of grant payments the above receipts were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1994–95

  3,231,000

  1995–96

  2,846,000

  1996–97

  1,600,000

  1997–98

  1,800,000

  Disabled Parking
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to prevent able-bodied drivers from using parking bays designated for people with disabilities. [115046]

  Mr. Hill
  As I announced on 18 November 1999, the Orange Badge Scheme is to be reviewed this year, and one of the areas we will look at is the enforcement of the Scheme.

  However, it is already an offence under section 47 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to park a vehicle which is not displaying an Orange Badge in an on-street designated disabled persons' parking bay.

  The Orange Badge Scheme does not, however, apply to off-street car parks, whether local authority or privately owned, and enforcement of those disabled persons' parking bays is a matter for the car park operator concerned. In the case of local authority off-street car parks, normally their off-street parking place orders either make it an offence for someone not displaying a valid Orange Badge to park in a disabled persons' parking bay or make it subject to the payment of an "excess charge". In private car parks, we understand it is possible in law for the owners to agree with the local authority that a parking place order be made in respect of that car park.
  620W
  Conditions of use can then be enforced as if it were a local authority car park, with penalties or excess charges levied on offenders.

  Press Office
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what are the total running costs of his Department's Press Office, including staff salaries, for the year 1999—2000; and what is the estimated cost for the next two years; [115761]

  (2) how many press officers, at what civil service grades, are employed in his Department's Press Office; [115762]

  (3) how many of his Department's press officers have been replaced in each of the last three years. [115763]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 March 2000]: The running costs are:

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  13.1

  2000–01

  23.3

  2001–02

  333

  1 Forecast outturn

  2 Provision

  3 Estimate provision

  These include the staff salaries, overtime, travel and subsistence, training and other administrative costs including regional media activity and press cuttings.

  The number of press officers (full-time equivalent) currently employed by DETR(C) grade is:

  Press officers

  Number

  Senior Civil Service

  1

  Band 7

  10.8

  Band 6

  5

  Band 5

  11

  Band 4

  18

  Band 3

  5

  1 Part-time

  The number of press officers who have joined or left the Media Centre since April 1999 is:

  Left—14

  Joined—17.

  Figures are not available in this format for earlier years.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a marine environment Bill to protect the United Kingdom's marine environment from oil spills. [115784]

  Mr. Mullin
  None at present. Shipping is an internationally regulated business and accordingly my Department is in discussion with counterparts in the International Maritime Organisation and with the European Union to determine practical measures for enhanced protection against maritime pollution.

  On 10 February my Department also published a consultants' report as the first stage in a consultative process which could lead to the setting up of Marine

  621W
  Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRAs) to help protect sensitive marine and coastal environments at particular risk from pollution from shipping.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for the financial year 1998–99 the number and total value of contracts let by his Department with external consultants and advisers that(a) have been put out to competitive tender, (b) have not been put out to competitive tender and (c) have been let on a non-commercial basis, stating in each case the names of the individuals or organisations that have carried out the work. [115809]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: The information that has been requested as parts (a) and (b) of the question is not held centrally and cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. All contracts are awarded using competition unless there are compelling reasons for using single tender action.

  As for part (c), it is a requirement that all my Department's contracts are awarded on a commercial basis in accordance with Government Accounting, Departmental Procurement Guidance, and the UK and EU Regulatory Framework.

  Local Government Bill
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Local Government Bill [Lords] is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement. [115655]

  Ms Armstrong
  There are considerable doubts whether section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Clause 91 of the Local Government Bill amends, but also reaffirms, the provisions of section 2A. It is for this reason that it is doubtful whether the Bill is compatible with the ECHR.

  This Government have already said that they intend to remove clause 91 of the Bill and, in its place, provide for the repeal of section 2A of the 1986 Act. The Bill will then be compatible with the ECHR.

  Zone

  Design consultants

  (1) Home Planet

  Zone design and build

  Park Avenue

  Flying creatures, airframe and engineering

  Skyships

  External design of flying creatures

  FiT

  Soundtrack

  David A. Stewart and Steve McLaughlin

  Film

  Hugh Hudson

  (2) Living Island

  Designer

  At Work Ltd.

  Remarkable Pencil Machine

  Edward Miller

  (3) Shared Ground

  Architectural design

  Philip Gurmuchdjian and Shigeru Ban

  Architect

  Stephen Spence Associates

  Initial design

  HP:ICM

  Second Homes
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what change there was in the number of second homes owned between January 1995 and January 2000; and if he will make a statement; [115940]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the change in the prevalence of second home ownership England and Wales over the next (a) five and (b) 10 years. [115939]

  Mr. Mullin
  The following table shows estimates from the DETR Survey of English Housing of the number of second homes in England. Like all estimates from sample surveys, they are subject to a certain amount of random variation and are not precise to the level of detail shown. The change between one year and the next should not be regarded as a reliable estimate of longer term trends. Statistics on the number of second homes in Wales are incomplete. No projections of the number of second homes are made.

  Second homes in England: 1994–95 to 1998–99

  Thousand

  1994–95

  215

  1995–96

  185

  1996–97

  203

  1997–98

  224

  1998–99

  248

  Note:

  The table shows second homes in England owned or rented by households with their main residence also in England. It excludes second homes which are the main residence of another household, and those which the owners are intending to sell. Second homes may be either owned or rented.

  Source:

  1994–95 onwards—DETR Survey of English Housing

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the design consultants contracted to undertake work on each of the zones in the dome. [109722]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The companies involved in the design and content of each exhibit zone are set out as follows. The contractual terms of each vary, reflecting the different nature and type of exhibit—both in terms of structure and content.

  623W

  Zone

  Design consultants

  Exhibition designer

  At Work Ltd.

  Construction

  Mivan

  Website

  Common Purpose

  (4) Play

  Design of zone, exhibits and fit-out

  Land Design Studio

  Games suppliers are subcontracted to Land Design Studio

  (5) Body

  Initial concept design

  HP:ICM

  Design and build of zone and exhibits in Explore

  HP:ICM

  Architect and designer of Body structure

  Branson Coates Architects

  Body Show design

  Sting Ltd.

  Exhibition fit-out

  Mice and BNW

  Production designer

  Andrew MacAlpine

  Production team

  The Production Office

  Special effects

  Asylum

  Sound

  M62

  Film (Explore)

  Produced by HP:ICM

  (6) Work and Learning

  Designer

  At Work Ltd.

  Film (Old Work)

  CIC

  Film (Learning)

  BBC and Tesco

  Visuals and computer software (Learning)

  StudioFish Ltd.

  Schoolnet2000 access and equipment

  Tesco

  (7) Money

  Design of zone and exhibits and fit out (The Bank of England provided the £50 notes on display; and the data feed is provided by Reuters)

  Caribiner

  (8) Rest

  Design

  Richard Rogers Partnership

  Soundtrack

  ArtAngel

  (9) Mind

  Design and selection of exhibits

  Office of Zaha Hadid (OZH)

  Design of Engineering our Future

  Johnnie Ball

  Art installations

  Activmedia, Andrew Stevenson, Butterworth and Storm, Debut de Siecle/Big Projects, Escape, Simon Pope, Gavin Turk, GEC Marconi, Helen Chadwick, Hussein Chalayan, Langlands and Bell, Nancy Burson, Neville Brody, New Renaissance, Oven Digital, Richard Brown, Richard Deacon, Ron Muerck, Ryoji Ikeda, Smart Fibres, University of West England, Urs B. Roth

  (10) Faith

  Architectural Design

  Eva Jiricna Architects

  Design of exhibits

  Jasper Jacob Associates

  Film

  BBC

  Sculpture

  David Begbie

  Lighting installation

  James Turrell

  Photographs

  Zo-oid and others commissioned by NMEC

  (11) Timekeepers

  Foam factory equipment

  SRS Interactive

  Construction and assembly

  Mice

  Character creation

  Foundation and Cosgrove Hall

  (12) Self Portrait

  Design, exhibits and fit out

  Caribiner

  The National Portrait

  David Mach

  Sculpture design

  Gerald Scarfe

  (13) Journey

  The sponsor of this zone, Ford, has been responsible for its design, build and fit-out

  (14) Talk

  The sponsor of this zone, BT, has been responsible for its design, build and fit-out

  (15) Our Town story

  Design

  Richard Rogers Partnership

  Content

  Communities across the UK developing performances for their day in the dome

  624W

  UK Sport
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library minutes of his meeting with UK Sport on 30 November 1999. [115233]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Minutes of discussions between Ministers, civil servants, and third parties who have been invited on a confidential basis, are taken for internal use and record and it is not possible to make them public. I can however confirm that the conclusion of the meeting on 30 November 1999 was that relocating athletics would provide better value for public money than proceeding with the platform design.

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Grant-in-aid

  20,759,000

  20,855,000

  Free entry—for children (1999) and over 60s (2000)

  997,000

  1,424,000

  Extra funds

  1,000,000

  1,400,000

  Purchase and refurbishment of RNAY Wroughton

  Up to 1,000,000

  400,000

  Total

  23,756,000

  24,079,000

  For 1998–99, the Science Museum was allocated £20,281,000.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the increase in funding last requested by the Science Museum in order to fund free admission for adults. [115327]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The increase in funding last requested by the Science Museum was for £5.83 million to implement free adult admission from 28 June 2000 to 31 March 2001. Of this, £2 million relates to loss of adult admission income, £1.91 million in compensation for loss of recoverable VAT input tax on operating income and £1.92 million for VAT on capital activity. Similar figures for the National Railway Museum are £1.11 million, of which £700,000 relates to lost adult admission income, £210,000 for VAT on operating income, and £200,000 for VAT on capital activity.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Crest)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the dimensions of the RUC crest on police cars in Northern Ireland. [114896]

  Mr. Ingram
  When applied, the size of the crest is normally 284mm x 166mm on a white panel of 305mm x 186mm.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the reasons for the RUC crest being removed from police cars in Northern Ireland. [114897]

  Mr. Ingram
  The decision to adopt a new livery was taken after the Royal Ulster Constabulary considered the future livery and the visibility of police vehicles at the scenes of incidents, especially on busy main roads. This work was commissioned by the Association of Chief

  Science Museum
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when his Department will announce the Government grant to the Science Museum for 2000–01; [115325]

  (2) how much funding his Department gave to the Science Museum in the years (a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and how much his Department will grant to the Science Museum in 2000–01. [115326]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Chairman of the Science Museum with details of the Museum's funding allocation for the years 1999-2001 on 14 December 1998. The amounts are as follows:

  Police Officers (ACPO) from the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) which recommended the adoption of a livery, commonly known as Battenburg, based on highly reflective large blue and yellow checks which cover the sides of the vehicle and red and yellow chevrons on the rear. It was a specific recommendation of the PSDB that, for safety reasons,
  no other materials, logos or symbols be placed over the blocks of colour on the sides of the vehicle.

  Having considered the Health and Safety implications of this report and the desire to create a clear, consistent and highly visible image for police vehicles, the Chief Constable decided that the Royal Ulster Constabulary crest would not in future be displayed on the sides of liveried police vehicles. The change does not affect existing non-Battenburg liveried vehicles, many of which carry an RUC crest.

  Mrs. Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of the police investigations into the death of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson; how much of this is in respect of the costs of RUC officers; and how much is in respect of police officers from Great Britain. [114895]

  Mr. Ingram
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) on 22 February 2000,Official Report, column 96W.

  Consultants
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) clinical and (b) medical oncology consultants there are per 100,000 population for each health authority in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [115189]
  627W
  Mr. George Howarth
  In Northern Ireland, clinical and medical oncology services are provided by Eastern Health and Social Services Board.

  Currently there are 0.65 clinical oncology consultants per 100,000 population, and 0.12 medical oncology consultants per 100,000 population.

  The Campbell report on the reorganisation of cancer services in Northern Ireland set a target of 13 oncology consultants by 2005. This target has already been reached.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Assault
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Solicitor-General what is the average time from police referral to(a) decision to prosecute and (b) decision not to prosecute in the case of accusations of assault, in each of the last three years. [115597]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records on the time required to complete particular stages of the prosecution process in respect of particular offences, nor does it hold such records in respect of offences generally.

  Judicial Reviews
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Solicitor-General what is his policy on the employment of Queen's Counsel in applications for judicial review. [115969]

  The Solicitor-General
  Whenever a Government Department in England and Wales wishes to brief counsel to appear in court on a civil matter, including judicial review proceedings, they must first consider whether it is appropriate to use one of the junior barristers included on the Panels of approved counsel. The procedure for selecting counsel to be included in these panels has recently been revised to make sure that the selection process is fair and transparent. Government Departments are therefore required to use the approved junior counsel in all but the most exceptional cases. If the lawyer handling the case believes that the hearing merits the instruction of a Queen's Counsel then they must seek a nomination of a particular Queen's Counsel with the appropriate expertise. Each such nomination has to be approved personally by the Law Officers before instructions can be sent. In considering whether the use of Queen's Counsel is necessary in a particular case factors such as the importance of the case, the complexity of the legal issues involved, whether the case will decide a point of principle of general application and the amount of money at stake are taken into account.

  Crown Prosecutors
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement regarding the Code for Crown Prosecutors. [115906]

  The Solicitor-General
  On 24 November 1999,Official Report, column 105W, I announced that the Code for Crown Prosecutors would be reviewed to take account of the Human Rights Act 1998. The aim of the review is to ensure that the Code for Crown Prosecutors is relevant, clear and accessible, properly considers the rights and
  628W
  interests of victims, and reflects the exercise of the statutory functions of Crown Prosecutors. The review will take into account legislative changes since 1994, particularly the Human Rights Act, changes to the structure of the CPS, and procedural changes to the criminal justice system.

  The review team has now been established, and will be writing to organisations and individuals with an interest in the Code, asking for comments. The review team also invite views from the general public, who may write to their local Chief Crown Prosecutors, or write to, or e-mail CPS Headquarters. Information on the Code and the review can be found on the CPS website at www.cps.gov.uk.

  It is important that the Code supports the CPS' commitment to excellence of decision making, improving victims' and witnesses' experiences of the criminal justice system, and pursuing a partnership approach within the criminal justice system while maintaining its independence in decisions on casework.

  The Attorney-General and I welcome this review, and will be taking a close interest both in its progress and any major issues that may arise.

HEALTH

  Medical Technical Staff
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the pay of medical technical staff in the NHS. [112444]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: We have offered medical technical staff above inflation pay rises not just for one year but for three years. The details of the offer are as follows:
  For year 1 (1999–2000) an increase of 3 per cent. or £250, whichever is the higher;
  For year 2 (2000–01) an increase of 3.25 per cent. or £300 whichever is the higher;
  For year 3 (2001–02) in the context of agreement on the negotiations on Agenda for Change (including the principle of pay linkage as set out in paragraph 7.4 of the Joint Framework of Principles and Agreed Statement on the Way Forward issued on 8 October 1999) and the joint commitment to lifelong learning, a minimum RPI(X) at December 2000 reported in January 2001, plus 0.5 per cent.

  Myodil
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have suffered injury as a result of having been injected with myodil. [112478]

  Ms Stuart
  It is not possible to estimate the number of people who have suffered injury, such as arachnoiditis, as a result of being injected with Myodil, as no data are held centrally.

  GPs (Indemnity)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 625W, on indemnity cover for general practitioners, if the criteria for approval of medical liability indemnities under section 9 of the Health Act

  629W
  1999 will include the maintenance of a solvency margin no lower than that applicable to other injuries under the Insurance Companies Act 1982; and if he will make a statement. [115413]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 625W. Criteria for the approval of professional indemnity cover, including the ability to meet the anticipated levels of claims, are currently the subject of consultation with interested organisations.

  Children's Services (North-west London)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the redevelopment of children's services in north-west London, with specific reference to(a) Northwick Park hospital's new paediatric ambulatory care unit and (b) matched funding from north Thames region for the £2.5 million raised from public subscription. [114570]

  Mr. Denham
  The Paediatric Ambulatory Care Unit at Northwick Park was completed and opened some 14 months ago. It was funded through a Children's Appeal which met the majority of the costs with the hospital itself making a smaller contribution from their annual block capital allocation. The foundation stone was laid by the Princess of Wales two weeks before her death and the unit is known as the "Princess Diana Ambulatory Care Unit". This improvement further enhances children's services in north-west London.

  No funding for the unit was sought from the Regional Capital Programme.

  Crohn's Disease
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision his Department has made for research into and treatment of Crohn's disease. [114951]

  Mr. Denham
  We fund health and medical research in different ways. The Medical Research Council spent around £0.5 million on Crohn's disease in 1998–99. In addition we are currently commissioning, via the Health Technology Assessment Programme, a research project relevant to Crohn's disease, which will assess the impact of patient-centred disease management of inflammatory bowel disease.

  Funding for the treatment of specific diseases is not separately identified in Health Authority or Primary Care Group allocations. Those commissioning healthcare will do so on the basis of local needs, in the context of priorities set nationally.

  The treatment of patients with Crohn's disease is increasingly shared between gastroenterologists and General Practitioners. It may include following a special diet, dietary supplements, drug treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics and immunosuppressive drugs; and, in severe cases, surgery. Chronic inflammatory bowel disease is a risk factor for malignancy, and regular assessment is important.

  NHS Regional Structures
  Mr Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the annual cost of and (b) the number of people employed in each NHS regional structure in each of the last three years. [114902]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is in the tables. The regional offices were organised in April 1999. The cash allocations have been mapped from the old to the new structure. The staffing figures are not available in this format.

  Cash allocations

  NHS executive regional offices

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Eastern

  6,716,419

  6,910,092

  6,992,847

  London

  9,187,167

  9,170,161

  9,558,307

  North and Western

  6,983,894

  6,999,392

  7,397,361

  Northern and Yorkshire

  6,814,419

  6,906,315

  7,279,300

  South Eastern

  8,416,949

  8,442,609

  9,205,567

  South and West

  6,907,419

  6,935,717

  7,048,229

  Trent

  6,947,425

  6,972,425

  7,189,736

  West Midlands

  6,966,889

  7,030,291

  7,246,700

  Total

  58,940,581

  59,367,002

  61,918,047

  Staff numbers

  NHS executive regional offices

  April 1998

  April 1999

  January 2000

  Anglia and Oxford

  111

  —

  —

  Eastern

  —

  110

  94

  North Thames

  105

  —

  —

  South Thames

  114

  —

  —

  London

  —

  122

  130

  North and Western

  117

  116

  109

  Northern and Yorkshire

  109

  109

  105

  South Eastern

  —

  113

  123

  South and West

  107

  112

  104

  Trent

  129

  138

  116

  West Midlands

  109

  102

  109

  Total

  901

  922

  890

  Ryhope General Hospital, Sunderland
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were occupied at the Ryhope General Hospital, Sunderland, on the first day of each month since 1 January 1999. [115080]

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

  Month

  Beds occupied

  January 1999

  121

  February 1999

  141

  March 1999

  133

  April 1999

  113

  May 1999

  105

  June 1999

  114

  July 1999

  118

  August 1999

  108

  September 1999

  110

  October 1999

  119

  November 1999

  117

  December 1999

  109

  January 2000

  121

  February 2000

  149

  Source:

  Sunderland Health Authority

  Speech and Language Therapists
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about including Speech and Language Therapists within the remit of the Pay Review Body; and if he will make a statement. [115083]

  Mr. Denham
  We have received several representations from Trade Union Organisations, hon. Members and individuals about whether other professional groups, including Speech and Language Therapists, should be permitted to come under the remit of the nurses and professions allied to medicine Pay Review Body (NPRB).

  Our proposals for modernising National Health Service pay which were published in February 1999 in "Agenda for Change", include bringing some smaller groups of highly qualified staff within the scope of the NPRB, without changing its fundamentally professional character.

  Initial discussions with NHS trade unions on pay modernisation resulted in a joint Framework of Principles and Agreed Statement on the Way forward which was published on 8 October 1999. Paragraph 7.2 of the Joint Framework sets out as a starting point for more detailed discussions with trade unions the qualifying criteria for groups to come within the scope of the NPRB.

  The criteria are:
  Professions with a minimum entry requirement of three years' educational study (or equivalent) to diploma level or higher, in a health specific area (other than medicine or dentistry) and which are state registered and have a substantial majority of members employed in healthcare.

  The Joint Framework also goes on to say that:
  staff groups which support professions added to the NPRB remit, and who have a direct connection with the transferred groups similar to that between nursing auxiliaries and registered nurses would also need to be considered for transfer.

  NHS hospital and community health services: staff within North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust, as at 30 September each year

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (numbers (headcount))1

  Hospital medical staff and consultants

  Nursing staff

  Midwifery staff

  Health visiting staff

  Numbers (headcount)

  Of which medical consultants

  1994

  2,080

  260

  2—

  340

  120

  1995

  1,830

  0

  0

  350

  130

  1996

  1,620

  230

  0

  390

  140

  1997

  1,670

  220

  0

  450

  150

  1998

  1,720

  220

  0

  460

  150

  1 A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995, therefore information based on this classification is not comparable with earlier years.

  2 Five or less and greater than zero.

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non Medical Workforce Census.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Residential Properties
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list by region(a) the number of residential properties owned by health authorities and NHS trusts that were empty on 1 April 1999, (b) the number of such properties empty for one year or more
  632W
  I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that as this is part of continuing confidential discussions with NHS Unions aimed at reaching agreement by summer 2000, I am unable to comment further at this stage.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mixed-sex wards exist in the North and Yorkshire region; where they are; and when they are due to be phased out. [115482]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities are monitored centrally on their commitment to eliminate mixed-sex hospital accommodation. Data from the latest monitoring exercise were published by the National Health Service Executive in "Health Authority Target Dates for meeting the Objectives to Eliminate Mixed Sex Hospital Accommodation: Position at 30 September 1998", copies of which are available in the Library.

  North Staffordshire Hospital Trust
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year since 1994 the number of(a) nurses, (b) doctors, (c) consultants, (d) midwives and (e) health visitors employed by the North Staffordshire Hospital Trust; and if he will make a statement. [115627]

  Mr. Denham
  The table illustrates that the number of nursing and midwifery staff employed by the North Staffordshire Hospital National Health Service Trust declined between the years 1994 and 1997. However, nursing staff numbers have increased in 1998 and the numbers of hospital medical doctors employed within the Trust steadily increased since 1994, demonstrating our commitment to increase the number of doctors and nurses working within the NHS. It should be noted that inflated figures for nursing staff in 1994 are not comparable with later years, due to a new classification system introduced in 1995.

  and (c)(a) and (b) as a percentage of the total number of residential properties owned by health authorities and NHS trusts; [115613]

  (2) if empty residential properties owned by the NHS trusts and health authorities are counted by (a) number of vacant buildings and (b) the number of unoccupied

  633W
  bed spaces when notified to the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for inclusion in the published figures for empty properties in England. [115619]

  Mr. Denham
  Information as of 1 April 1999 is not available centrally since the last survey was carried out as at September 1998. This showed that out of a total of 2,336 houses, and 5,388 flats owned by National Health Service trusts, 290 houses and 605 flats were vacant. This represented an average of 11.6 per cent. vacant of the total (approximately 2 each per NHS trust).

  Information is not available on the number of properties empty for one year or more.

  The regional totals are as follows:

  Houses

  Flats

  Total vacant

  Anglia and Oxford

  282

  541

  128

  Northern and Yorkshire

  301

  744

  108

  South and West

  239

  677

  98

  North Thames

  332

  712

  135

  North West

  272

  868

  97

  South Thames

  340

  526

  74

  West Midlands

  183

  889

  87

  Trent

  331

  643

  170

  Note:

  Regional boundaries changed in April 1999

  The survey of the NHS residential estate, carried out last in September 1998, counted the number of houses and flats, not the number of bed spaces in those properties.

  Domiciliary Oxygen Service
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to review the Domiciliary Oxygen Service in England following the Royal College of Physicians' guidance, "Domiciliary Oxygen Therapy Services". [116304]

  Ms Stuart
  Following the publication of the Royal College of Physicians' guidance "Domiciliary oxygen therapy services", we will be reviewing a number of aspects of the Domiciliary Oxygen Service under the following terms of reference.

  To review the scope and organisation of the Domiciliary Oxygen Service in England in the light of the 1999 guidance of the Royal College of Physicians, including:
  whether, and if so to what extent, patient access to the service should continue to be via general practitioner prescribing or otherwise,
  the availability of alternative forms of oxygen delivery (cylinder, concentrator, and liquid) and associated equipment, and the circumstances in which one form might be preferable to another,
  whether the current supply arrangements, including the arrangements for setting prices should be maintained or altered,
  the cost effectiveness and affordability of any changes,
  other relevant matters.

  I am placing in the Library a copy of a letter to interested companies and organisations inviting them to let us have their views as a first step in the review.

  NHS Spending (Hampshire)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total NHS spending per head of population(a) nationally and (b) in Hampshire, including the unitary authorities of Southampton and Portsmouth and (c) in each health authority in Hampshire, including the unitary authorities of Southampton and Portsmouth, in each year since 1979 for which figures are available. [116020]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities have existed in their current form since 1 April 1996.

  The table shows spending levels on health per weighted head of population for Hampshire health authorities.

  Expenditure figures are from health authority audited accounts and are not total National Health Service funding. For 1997–98 and 1998–99 the Prescription Pricing Authority rather than individual health authorities have accounted for the majority of drugs expenditure. Health authorities do not account for the majority of General Dental Service expenditure.

  Expenditure estimates for 1999–2000 are not available.

  Expenditure per weighted head of population

  £

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  North and Mid Hampshire

  538.86

  518.81

  541.54

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  561.65

  521.45

  586.91

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  574.88

  577.56

  621.60

  England total

  625.56

  607.85

  659.76

  NHS Prescriptions (Appeals)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target times his Department set for appeal of new(a) products and (b) pharmaceuticals to be available on NHS prescription. [R] [115959]

  Ms Stuart
  Drugs, including pharmaceuticals, may be prescribed on the National Health Service by general practitioners unless and until they are listed in Schedule 10 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 (the "blacklist"). Appliances must be listed in Part IX of the Drug Tariff in order to be prescribed on the NHS by GPs. Representations against proposals to list drugs in Schedule 10, or against the rejection of an application for listing of an appliance in Part IX, may be made but no timescale for the consideration of such representations has been set and will vary depending on the complexity and difficulty of the issues in question.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of public funds was spent(a) on fees and (b) otherwise in respect of the private finance initiative proposals for the Royal Berkshire and Battle hospitals. [106698]
  635W
  Mr. Denham
  The Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals Trust has been involved in three private finance initiative schemes to date:Consolidation Project: a new build consolidating services on the Royal Berkshire Hospital site;
  Haemodialysis Unit: moving renal services from Dellwood Hospital to the Royal Berks site; and
  Information Management and Technology (IM and T) Project: a partnership to develop various interlinked IM and T systems.

  The amount of public funds spent on fees and other PFI related costs to date are set out in the table.

  Public expenditure on each project to March 2000

  £000

  To March 2000

  Consolidation

  Haemodialysis

  IM and T

  Fees

  Legal Advice

  26

  30

  35

  Financial Advice

  10

  19

  48

  Other Advice

  1517

  12

  13

  Sub-total Fees

  553

  61

  96

  Other Costs

  PFI Partner Exit Costs

  2304

  —

  —

  Internal Project Costs3

  284

  20

  —

  Associated Estate Works

  —

  84

  —

  Sub-total Other Costs

  588

  104

  0

  Total

  1,141

  165

  96

  1 A significant proportion of the cost for 'Other Advice' arose from seeking planning permissions for the project, some benefits from which have been passed on to the publicly funded project.

  2 The trust board agreed to pay Proteam 2 (the private sector partner) this amount under an abortive cost agreement.

  3 'Internal Project Costs' covers the additional cost of project management and staff working on the project. The IM and T project is very new and material internal project costs to date are very low. The estimate is that final fees will be £238,000 and internal project costs £265,000, including the figures in the table.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 20 and 21 March; and if he will make a statement. [115958]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the UK at the EU Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on 20 March 2000. Mr. Ross Finnie, Minister for Rural Affairs at the Scottish Executive, and Ms Christine Gwyther, Secretary for Agriculture and the Rural Economy at the National Assembly for Wales, were also present.

  The Council had an exchange of views on the Commission White Paper on food safety, focusing particularly on the case for horizontal legislation providing for controls across the whole food chain, the need for transparency in the operation of controls, and procedures for the effective handling of the results of inspection visits. Similar debates on the Commission's White Paper are being held in other instances of the Council in order to inform the Commission's eventual report to Heads of Government.
  636W
  The Council agreed on conclusions to guide the Commission in its strategy for accommodating budgetary and WTO pressures in the fixing of export refunds on processed goods. I emphasised to the Council the importance of export refunds to the cereals-based spirit drinks sector, notably Scotch Whisky, and urged the Commission to recognise this concern in its implementation of export refund reductions. A statement to this effect was recorded in the minutes of the Council.

  The Council also had a first discussion of a proposal to maintain the EU subsidised school milk scheme, but on a basis of a reduced EU budget contribution and compulsory co-financing by member states. I stressed the importance to the UK of continuing the scheme for the benefit of school children, and requested the Commission to examine other possibilities for savings in the EU milk regime before co-financing had to be considered.

  Among other issues discussed in the Council were the present state of negotiations on the EU banana regime and the impact on agriculture of the EU nitrates directive. The Council also agreed a request from Italy for authorisation for payment of a state aid in the sugar sector, with Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands abstaining.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the agricultural shows that he and each of the ministers in his Department have accepted invitations to attend in 2000. [114757]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: Ministers have received a number of invitations to attend agricultural shows in 2000. These are currently being considered.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the agricultural shows that he and each of the ministers in his Department attended in 1999 and the dates of each such visit. [114756]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: The table details the agricultural shows attended by Ministers during 1999.

  Show

  Date

  Minister

  MUCK 99 Agricultural Show

  28 April 1999

  Elliot Morley

  Devon County Show

  21 May 1999

  Lord Donoughue

  Royal Bath and West Show

  24 May 1999

  Nick Brown

  Beef 99 Show

  3 June 1999

  Nick Brown

  Staffordshire County Show

  3 June 1999

  Jeff Rooker

  East of England Show

  18 June 1999

  Nick Brown

  Three Counties Show

  19 June 1999

  Jeff Rooker

  Lincolnshire Agricultural Show

  23 June 1999

  Elliot Morley

  Highland Show

  25 June 1999

  Nick Brown

  Royal Show

  5 July 1999

  Nick Brown

  Royal Show

  6 July 1999

  Lord Donoughue

  Kent County Show

  15 July 1999

  Elliot Morley

  Welsh Show

  20 July 1999

  Nick Brown

  Ryedale Agricultural Show

  27 July 1999

  Elliot Morley

  New Forest Show

  28 July 1999

  Elliot Morley

  Press Office
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) Civil Service grade and (b) areas of responsibility of each of the staff employed in the MAFF Press Office. [114754]
  637W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: The MAFF Press Office is headed by the Chief Press Officer (Grade 7). The staff reporting to him and their areas of responsibility are as follows:

  Senior Information Officer

  Information Officer

  Animal welfare, fisheries, countryside matters, flood and coastal defence.

  Senior Information Officer

  Information Officer

  Assistant Information Officer

  Food safety, food standards, meat hygiene, animal health (including BSE), pesticide safety, veterinary medicines, plant health and research, quarantine.

  Senior Information Officer

  Information Officer

  Assistant Information Officer

  Europe, CAP, regions, food and drink industry, marketing and competition, export promotion, administration, horticulture, pigs and poultry.

  There are five administrative support staff, one Executive Officer, two part-time Administrative Officers, one Administrative Assistant and one Personal Secretary.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the budget for running the MAFF Press Office in each of the last 10 financial years. [114755]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: Pay and non-pay running costs, attributable to the MAFF Press Office, for each of the last 10 financial years are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1999–2000

  1382,000

  1998–99

  556,000

  1997–98

  460,000

  1996–97

  442,000

  1995–96

  417,000

  1994–95

  539,000

  1993–94

  532,000

  1992–93

  490,000

  1991–92

  519,000

  1990–91

  2n/a

  1 Expenditure up to the end of January 2000

  2 Comparable figures are not available for 1990–91

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress made in the case of the European Union v. Government of France relating to the ban on UK beef. [113399]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: On 4 January the European Commission brought before the European Court of Justice its infringement action against the French Republic over France's failure to lift its import ban on British beef. Notification of these proceedings (Case C-1/00) was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 4 March. The French Government has now to prepare its defence.

  Local Authority Farmland
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of farmland are owned by local authorities. [113880]
  638W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: Information available relates to land let by English local authorities as statutory smallholdings. The most recent figures, covering the period 1 April 1996–31 March 1997, were published in the "Forty-seventh Annual Report to Parliament on Smallholdings in England". A total area of 119,977 hectares, equivalent to 296,463 acres, was held for smallholdings purposes.

  Meetings
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1) pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 16W, concerning the number of hon. Members he has met or refused to meet to discuss farming issues, for what reasons he did not provide the numbers requested; [114536]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000, Official Report, column 16W, concerning his meetings with hon. Members, if he will list the individual hon. Members he has (a) agreed to meet and (b) refused to meet to discuss farming issues since his appointment. [114537]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: I meet individual hon. Members and representatives of farming and other organisations frequently to discuss farming issues in both ministerial and party political contexts. The detailed information requested is not held centrally.

  Bass Fishing
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EC fishing nations regarding sport angling and offshore trawling for bass in the English Channel. [115738]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: My fisheries science advisers at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science are working with their opposite numbers in IFREMER, the French Institute for the Exploitation of the Sea, on studies on the movement of sea bass offshore. If this work indicates that there are threats to the long-term sustainability of the bass stock, I shall seek to persuade the other countries with an interest in the bass fishery and the European Commission of the need to act to protect the stock.

  Promotion of sport angling rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much Government funding is available to match local authority funding in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall for flood defences; how much has been available in each of the last three years; and how much has been taken up by each local authority in Devon. [115772]

  Mr. Morley
  Government funding is provided by way of Revenue Support Grant and MAFF grants on capital works.

  The flood defence Standing Spending Assessments (for Revenue Support Grant) reflect a range of flood defence

  639W
  costs falling on different classes of local authority, ie levies paid to the Environment Agency, special levies to internal drainage boards and local authorities own expenditure as a flood defence operating authority.

  £000

  Local authority1

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Cornwall CC

  2,275

  2,252

  2,228

  2,278

  Devon CC 2

  4,973

  4,955

  3,388

  3,447

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  953

  960

  Torbay

  —

  —

  577

  586

  Dorset CC 3

  2,711

  1,672

  1,706

  1,773

  Somerset CC

  3,200

  3,563

  3,617

  3,646

  Bath and North East Somerset

  412

  388

  602

  415

  North Somerset

  1,414

  1,547

  1,595

  1,627

  1 Some of the above local authorities pay levies to Flood Defence Committees other than Somerset and South West.

  2 Devon's SSA was reduced following creation of Plymouth and Torbay Unitary Authorities in 1998–99.

  3 Dorset's SSA was reduced following creation of Bournemouth and Poole Unitary Authorities in 1997–98.

  MAFF grant is allocated to the Environment Agency by means of Grant Earnings Ceilings (GECs), which represent the total of approved capital expenditure in respect of which grant can be claimed, and not in terms of the grant available. The amount of grant paid is dependent on the mix of (a) fluvial and (b) tidal/sea defence expenditure, for which different grant rates apply. Information is therefore unavailable in the form requested but a comparison of (i) the original GECs (which can be revised in-year) and (ii) the actual outturn of approved capital expenditure is as follows:

  £ million

  Somerset

  South West (Devon and Cornwall)

  (i)

  (ii)

  (i)

  (ii)

  1996–97

  4.0

  4.0

  4.5

  5.1

  1997–98

  3.2

  4.8

  3.0

  2.9

  1998–99

  2.7

  4.5

  2.2

  2.1

  MAFF grants to local authorities are available for schemes on the forward capital programme that meet certain criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. The timing of expenditure is largely a matter for the authorities. Information is therefore unavailable in the form requested, but the amount of grant paid to local authorities, including a more detailed breakdown for Devon, is as follows:

  £000

  Devon

  Somerset

  Cornwall

  South Hams

  Torbay

  North Devon

  1996–97

  46

  —

  —

  51

  —

  1997–98

  27

  —

  51

  —

  —

  1998–99

  69

  —

  —

  2

  3

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  HoC Commission Meeting
  Angela Smith
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what matters were discussed at the meeting
  640W
  The flood defence SSAs for all of those authorities which contribute to the South West Regional Flood Defence Committee and/or the Somerset Local Flood Defence Committee, are as follows:

  of the House of Commons Commission on 6 March; and how long the meeting lasted. [115925]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  It is not the practice of the Commission to report on its deliberative sessions which are held in private, but the Commission is considering ways of improving the distribution of information about relevant decisions to Members.

  The Commission reports on all matters that come before it in its Annual Report, published during July. The hon. Member may wish to consult the last Annual Report, the Twenty First, for 1998–99 (HC721) for details of the Commission activities during that financial year.

TREASURY

  IR35
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what ways the fashion modelling industry will benefit from the changes proposed under IR35. [115640]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: All sectors of industry will benefit from the changes we propose. IR35 will ensure that measures designed to support small businesses are properly targeted, and do not go to people who are really the same as employees.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of IR35 proposals on the avoidance of tax and national insurance payments in the fashion modelling industry. [115641]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: The legislation will stop the use of personal service companies and similar intermediaries to avoid PAYE tax and National Insurance Contributions in all industries.

  House Prices
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action he is taking to slow the rise in house prices; and if he will make a statement; [115840]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on the economy of the recent rise in house prices; and if he will make a statement. [115841]
  641W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to Box B4 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000", published on Tuesday 21 March.

  Average Wage
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, for each of the three most recent financial years, was the average wage of male workers in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales. [115366]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Denzil Davies, dated 23 March 2000:
  As the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding earnings of male employees.
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) is based on a one per cent sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax threshold and in particular those who work part-time. Listed below is information from the NES for the years 1997–1999.

  New Earnings Survey, April of each year—male employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence

  £

  Average gross weekly earnings

  1997

  1998

  1999

  United Kingdom

  Full-time

  407.3

  425.6

  440.7

  Part-time

  132.7

  150.8

  154.3

  All

  388.5

  405.1

  418.7

  Wales

  Full-time

  363.5

  376.4

  384.0

  Part-time

  1—

  1—

  1—

  All

  347.3

  360.1

  366.5

  1 Reliable estimate unavailable

  Aviation Fuel Taxation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of administering the taxing of aviation fuel. [15301]

  Mr. Timms
  No such estimate has been made.

  Manufacturing (Wales)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons were employed in the manufacturing sector in Wales in each of the years to 31 December 1999, 1998 and 1997, respectively. [115586]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Denzil Davies, dated 23 March 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector in Wales. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  There are two sources for this type of information. The first of the two tables attached shows the Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates, which are the number of people employed in the manufacturing
  642W
  sector in Wales. This measure includes Self-employed and those with second jobs in manufacturing. The LFS figures are shown for the autumn quarter (September to November) as the winter quarter (December to February) is not available until April. The second table is from the Short-term Turnover and Employment Survey which shows the number of Employee Jobs in the manufacturing sector in Wales. These figures are given for September for the years requested as the December 1999 results are also not available until April.

  All jobs 1 in manufacturing, Wales

  At Autumn

  Thousand

  1997

  255

  1998

  251

  1999

  246

  1 Total of people whose main job is in the manufacturing sector, and those with second jobs in manufacturing (whose main job is elsewhere), government-supported trainees and unpaid family workers. The 'second jobs' definition includes employees, self-employed and those people who did not specify their status.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, ONS

  Employee jobs in manufacturing, Wales

  At September

  Thousand

  1997

  214

  1998

  219

  1999

  208

  Source:

  Short-term Turnover and Employment Survey, ONS

  Income Statistics (Mothers)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the income distribution is in deciles of(a) lone mothers and (b) women in two-parent families who are in work when they give birth and who are eligible for Statutory Maternity Pay. [114791]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the format requested as past eligibility to Statutory Maternity Pay is not collected in the sample survey used to derive income data. Further, the sample is not large enough to identify sufficient numbers of women in receipt of Statutory Maternity Pay at the time of the interview for an analysis by decile.

  Such information that is available is in the table.

  Proportions of women in receipt of Statutory Maternity Pay in each half of the equivalised household income distribution, 1996–97 and 1997–98 combined (including the self-employed)

  Percentage

  Proporation of women in receipt of SMP

  Bottom half of income distribution

  Top half of income distribution

  Before Housing Costs

  30

  70

  After Housing Costs

  36

  64

  Notes:

  1. The information comes from the 'Households Below Average Income' (HBAI) series and relates to Great Britain. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs in line with HBAI conventions. All the estimates in the table relate to women who were, at the time of the survey interview, in receipt of Statutory Maternity Pay.

  2. Estimates are subject to sampling error.

  3. Estimates were based on two survey years combined, and should be treated with caution as the sample sizes are small.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received on the levels of standard spending assessments for education. [114612]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the area cost adjustment element of the standard spending assessment. We have already acknowledged that there are valid objections to the current SSA formula. The Government, in partnership with local government, have set up a review to see whether there is a better way of determining the distribution of funds which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements.

  Low Pay Commission (Therapeutic Activity)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions his Department plans to hold with the DTI on the recommendation in the second report of the Low Pay Commission that Departments should work together to produce clear guidance on the worker status of individuals undertaking therapeutic activity. [114613]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government support the recommendation made by the Commission and welcome their endorsement of the view that disabled people should benefit fully from the National Minimum Wage. As the Commission recognises, the worker status of those undertaking therapeutic activities is a complex issue. We are already working with DSS and DTI, and providers and users of therapeutic activities, on revised guidance.

  Information and Communications Technology
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support has been given to teachers to ensure that they are able to utilise information and communications technology to raise standards. [114614]

  Mr. Wills
  The New Opportunities Fund is making available £230 million to support the training of serving teachers and school library staff in the maintained sector in the effective use of information and communication technology (ICT). The training is available to all teachers in maintained schools and is specifically targeted at using ICT in the classroom to support the National Curriculum. The Government are supporting this programme by providing £20 million in 2000–01 to help teachers purchase their own computers.

  Schools (Special Measures)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools are currently on special measures. [114615]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of schools in special measures rose to 515 at the end of the academic year 1997–98 which was the year in which the first round of inspections was completed. Since then the number of schools in special measures has fallen to 424 at the end of the autumn term 1999.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the funding of further education. [114616]

  Mr. Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral reply I gave to our hon. Friend the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) earlier today,Official Report, column 1095.

  Lytham St. Anne's High Technology School
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will instruct an official from his Department to visit the Lytham St. Anne's high technology school to assess the school's future infrastructure requirements. [114618]

  Jacqui Smith
  The right hon. Member may be aware that a key element of the Government's schools' capital strategy is the requirement for local education authorities to produce Asset Management Plans. In drawing up AMPs, LEAs are required to assess the condition, sufficiency and suitability of school buildings, and to set clear priorities for building work. The Asset Management Plan is a local document drawn up in close consultation with schools and other partners; an official visiting at this stage is unlikely to enhance that process.

  Secondary School Funding
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on secondary school funding. [114619]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In 2000–01 Education Standard Spending has increased by £1.1 billion or 5.4 per cent. An extra £64 million is being made available to local authorities of which £14 million will be used to provide additional support to LEAs in Excellence in Cities areas and £50 million will go to support school budgets generally. In addition, schools will benefit from £500 million extra in Standards Fund grant, and through the New Deal for Schools they will receive an additional £1 billion for school repairs and adaptations. All schools will also benefit from the rescheduling of most of the increase in teachers' pension contributions from April 2000.

  Secondary schools will all benefit from these increases in funding.

  Departmental Jobs (Regional Policy)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the policy of his Department is on the dispersal of jobs in his Department to the regions. [114620]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department has headquarters sites in Runcorn, Sheffield and Darlington in addition to its London buildings. It also has staff located in each of the nine Government Offices for the Regions. Our policy is to locate jobs away from London, especially in the more cost-effective northern offices, wherever it makes operational sense to do so. The Employment Service maintains a network of Jobcentres across England, Scotland and Wales, with a main headquarters presence in Sheffield.

  Long-term Unemployment (Information Technology)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to help the long-term unemployed back into work through information technology. [114621]

  Ms Jowell
  As part of a major modernisation programme we shall be putting all the Employment Service vacancies and jobs from the private sector and other European countries in a new national job bank. They will be available on the Internet and by jobseekers on touch screen kiosks in Jobcentres which will give a wider choice of jobs than on the current vacancy display boards. All ES advisers and the national telephone helpline, ES Direct, will have access to the new jobs database. Jobseekers will be able to search for jobs and information about learning opportunities and careers through public access terminals in libraries, community centres and training centres, and in a number of Programme Centres.

  Pupil Deprivation Levels
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what methodology is used to measure deprivation levels of pupils in schools. [114622]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A number of different indicators are used to measure pupil deprivation levels for funding purposes. The education standard spending assessment methodology takes account of the additional educational needs of deprived pupils through indicators for the proportion of children of lone parents; and the proportion of children eligible for free school meals. The Standards Fund uses eligibility of children for free school meals as one factor to distribute grants for programmes such as family literacy and numeracy, social inclusion and study support. Common indicators used by local education authorities to distribute funding for additional educational needs to their schools are: eligibility for free school meals; unemployment rates; and English as a second language.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on average class sizes since May 1997. [114624]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  January 1999 saw the first fall in overall average class size for 10 years, from 24.9 in January 1998 to 24.8. Between January 1998 and January 1999 the size of the average primary school class in England fell from 27.7 to 27.4.

  The Government are well on course to deliver their class size pledge of reducing infant class sizes to 30 or below by September 2001, at the latest. The most recent available figures show that in September 1999, 171,000 (11 per cent.) infants were being taught in classes of over 30, compared with 485,000 (29 per cent.) in January 1998.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to reduce primary school class sizes in North Yorkshire. [114632]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our pledge is to ensure that there are no pupils in infant classes of over 30 pupils with one teacher by September 2001 at the latest. North Yorkshire's Class Size Plan aims to secure full implementation of the pledge early, by September 2000.646W
  We are supporting this plan with almost £5.8 million over 1999–2001, funding 33 new classrooms and 80 additional teachers. Between September 1998 and 1999 the number of pupils in infant classes over 30 in North Yorkshire fell by 60 per cent., from 3,271 to 1,317.

  January 1999 saw a fall of 1,036 pupils in primary classes over 30 in North Yorkshire, and a drop in the average primary class size of 0.2, compared with January 1998.

  Science and Engineering Courses
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to encourage applications for science and engineering courses in further and higher education institutions. [114625]

  Mr. Wicks
  Universities and Colleges are autonomous organisations and the DfEE regard curricula and promotion of subjects as primarily matters for individual institutions. Recent research in the HE sector found that the overall supply and demand of graduates is adequate and that any mismatches are due to the capabilities rather than quantity of graduates.

  Nursery and Early Years Education
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in providing nursery education for three-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [114626]

  Ms Hodge
  The sum of £390 million is being made available, over a three year period, to create 190,000 new free early education places for three year olds. By March 2002, 66 per cent. of all eligible three-year-olds in England will be able to access a free place.

  In 1999–2000 up to £40 million, enough to provide places for up to 48,000 children, was available across 64 local authorities with the highest level of social deprivation.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps have been taken to integrate care and education for the under-fives. [114630]

  Ms Hodge
  From the start of the National Childcare Strategy we have been keen to bring together early years and child care and we are successfully achieving this objective.

  We have established Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships in each of the 150 local education authority areas. The partnerships are required to set out policies for developing the vital links between care and education, especially in the early years and include them in their plans. We are currently assessing this year's Plans and will be working with Partnerships throughout the year to encourage integration.

  Under provisions in the Care Standards Bill we are also seeking to integrate the regulation of child care and early education under new National Standards regulated by Ofsted's new Early Years Directorate.

  Additionally, the 29 Early Excellence Centres are piloting seamless integration of services in a variety of settings. I have placed in the Library a copy of our report

  647W
  on First Findings from EECs showing, among other things, that for every £1 spent on family support, £8 is saved on alternative services.

  The New Opportunities Fund is also providing up to £15 million to fund integrated out of school childcare and learning activities. This is for children across the range from three to 16 with no specific amount for under-fives. We are setting up 250 Sure Start programmes in areas of disadvantage to promote the physical, intellectual, social and emotional development of young children under four. Each programme will work in partnership with local parents to improve access to health services. family support, advice on nurturing, child care and early learning.

  Temporary Classrooms (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide additional funding to Essex county council to enable all temporary classrooms in the Colchester constituency to be replaced with permanent accommodation. [114628]

  Jacqui Smith
  Applications for funding to replace temporary classrooms with permanent accommodation are considered against our published criteria. Currently, Essex county council has applied for the replacement of temporary accommodation at Colchester High School for Girls under the fourth phase of the New Deal for Schools. We hope to announce the outcome of this next month.

  Parental Choice (Greater London)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the percentage of parents in Greater London who secured the secondary school of their first choice for their children in each of the last three years. [114629]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected centrally. Parents have a right to express a preference for the school they would like their child to attend, but it has never been guaranteed that they will gain a place in their preferred school. Where a school has more applications than places available, it is inevitable that some parents will be disappointed.

  School Administration
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the policy, administrative and managerial requirements placed on schools. [114631]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department keeps policy, administrative and managerial requirements on schools under continuous review. Since the Working Group on Reducing the Bureaucratic Burdens on Teachers reported in January 1998, we have reviewed the National Curriculum to introduce more flexibility, introduced the "light touch" Ofsted inspection regime for effective schools, and reduced the proportion of Standards Fund grants distributed by bidding. Further work under way includes the review of the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice and a major exercise to rationalise data collection. We have also recently increased the support available to help head teachers introduce the new performance management arrangements and carry out the assessments for performance-related pay, and made the timetable for this more flexible.
  648W
  We will continue to seek every opportunity to streamline requirements on schools and ensure a clear focus on what is essential for raising standards. Future activity will be informed by the outcome of the Better Regulation Taskforce Review of Regulatory Impact on Head Teachers.

  Learning and Skills Council, Derbyshire
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received following his proposal to place the local Derbyshire Learning and Skills centre in Derby; and if he will make a statement. [114633]

  Mr. Wicks
  To date, three representations have been received. One was in support of the decision to locate the local arm of the Learning and Skills Council in Derby and two were petitioning for the local arm of the Learning and Skills Council to be located in Chesterfield.

  In reaching a decision on the location of the offices of the local Council for Derbyshire, I have taken account of the need to get best value for public money, by using premises currently occupied by the Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise, and of the need for a location that will facilitate effective operation of the Learning and Skills Council.

  Youth Support Services
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to improve the quality of youth support services. [114634]

  Mr. Wicks
  We set out our strategy for supporting young people in our document "Connexions: The best start in life for every young person" on 3 February. At the heart of our strategy is a new Connexions service which will provide a radical new approach to guiding and supporting all young people through their teenage years. We also intend involving young people and a wide range of partners in developing and implementing the service which will be phased in over two to three years. The new service will build on the best practice of multi-agency working and will have a quality framework which will have two main elements: target setting and benchmarking; and audit and inspection.

  Redditch Schools
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of surplus places in each school in Redditch for(a) the current year and (b) the next five years, taking account of school mergers as a result of decisions in the Redditch review. [115414]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of surplus places in each school in Redditch for the current year and the forecasts for September 2000 and 2001 are set out in the following table. My Department does not collect information on the levels of surplus places at individual schools for the next five years, and LEAs are not required to produce it. Information provided by Worcestershire in connection with proposals for reorganisation of schools in Redditch, which were approved by the Secretary of State in January, included information about the number of places to be removed at each school. The Secretary of State was satisfied that, while the proposals would remove
  649W
  over 2,000 of the 3,000 current surplus places in schools in the area, there would be sufficient places available to allow for parental and denominational choice.

  Surplus places

  As at September

  1999

  20001

  20011

  First Schools

  Arrowcrest First

  0

  3

  0

  Ipsley First

  120

  131

  0

  New First School

  0

  0

  0

  Claybrook First

  96

  109

  0

  Icknield First

  23

  25

  0

  New First School

  0

  0

  75

  St. John Fisher Catholic First

  96

  98

  0

  Astwood Bank First

  0

  0

  5

  Batchley First

  14

  3

  50

  Beoley First

  4

  0

  0

  Feckenham First

  5

  0

  0

  The Harry Taylor First

  10

  24

  25

  Holyoakes Field First

  1

  7

  15

  Marlfield Farm First

  174

  181

  45

  Moon's Moat First

  76

  69

  70

  Ravens Bank First

  26

  45

  50

  Roman Way First

  67

  65

  70

  St. George's First

  63

  85

  10

  St. Lukes First

  7

  10

  0

  St. Stephen's First

  22

  14

  5

  Tardebigge First

  7

  9

  10

  Tenacres First

  227

  229

  25

  The Vaynor First

  47

  85

  10

  Webheath First

  43

  40

  15

  Woodrow First

  95

  85

  110

  St. Thomas More Catholic First

  7

  10

  10

  Mount Carmel Catholic First

  6

  5

  5

  Total First Schools

  1,236

  1,332

  560

  Middle Schools

  Lodge Farm Middle

  63

  24

  0

  St. Stephen's Middle

  245

  261

  0

  New Middle

  0

  0

  0

  Moatfield Middle

  133

  122

  0

  St. Peter's CE Middle

  192

  208

  0

  New CE VC Middle

  0

  0

  0

  Birchensale Middle

  49

  30

  200

  Church Hill Middle

  159

  160

  180

  Dingleside Middle

  103

  91

  168

  Ridgeway Middle

  72

  65

  0

  Walkwood CE Middle

  0

  0

  20

  St. Bede's Catholic Middle

  0

  0

  0

  Total Middle Schools

  1,016

  961

  398

  High Schools

  Bridley Moor High

  73

  279

  0

  The Abbey High

  566

  239

  0

  The Ley's High

  383

  80

  0

  New North High

  0

  0

  40

  New South High

  0

  0

  20

  Arrow Vale Community High

  91

  70

  145

  St. Augustine's Catholic High

  0

  0

  5

  Total High Schools

  1,113

  1,118

  210

  1 Forecast

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and
  650W
  (b) the operation of websites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each website (i) the topics which have been covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per months and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [115803]

  Mr. Wills
  The central DfEE website covers a very wide range of education and employment information for many key audiences including teachers, head teachers, school governors, students, parents and employers. It has a core programme budget of £160,000 in 1999–2000, and £200,000 in each of the following three years, plus running costs for seven staff.

  Total activity for the site is around 400,000 'page impressions' per month.

  In addition, we have a number of important projects aimed at bringing on-line a wider range of web based services. The most significant are: development of the National Grid for Learning; the National Childcare Information Service; the Learning and Work Bank project to put vacancy, careers advice and learning opportunities for jobseekers and job changers on the web; the Electronic Communication with Schools project and websites specifically aimed at Standards in schools, Lifelong Learning, the New Deal and the Employment Service.

  The number of these projects and non-departmental public bodies' websites coupled with the costs associated with the many people across the Department involved in providing material for websites mean that detailed expenditure figures are not easily obtainable without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Special Needs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many and what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary pupils have statements of special educational needs in each education authority in London and the South East; [115785]

  (2) how many and what percentage of (a) primary and (b) secondary pupils who have statements of special needs have statements which are not being fully met in each education authority in London and the South East. [115792]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following table lists the number and percentage of pupils with statements of special educational needs, on the roll of primary and secondary schools maintained by each local education authority in London and the South East, as at January 1999.

  Information about levels of provision is not collected centrally. It is the responsibility of local education authorities to ensure that the special educational provision specified in a statement is arranged for those children for whom they are responsible. Where a child's parents consider that an LEA is failing to meet this duty, it is open to them to complain to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will investigate the complaint.
  651W

  Pupils with statements of special educational needs (SEN) in maintained primary and secondary schools, by local education authority area in England

  Position at January 1999

  Primary

  secondary

  Total pupils

  Pupils with statements

  Percentage

  Total pupils

  Pupils with statements

  Percentage

  London

  637,928

  9,961

  1.6

  387,504

  9,899

  2.6

  Inner London

  230,648

  3,894

  1.7

  122,165

  3,913

  3.2

  City of London

  216

  3

  1.4

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Camden

  11,585

  192

  1.7

  10,802

  369

  3.4

  Hackney

  18,019

  292

  1.6

  7,642

  230

  3.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9,569

  243

  2.5

  6,492

  142

  2.2

  Haringey

  21,869

  255

  1.2

  10,718

  241

  2.2

  Islington

  16,000

  381

  2.4

  7,467

  309

  4.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,730

  92

  1.4

  3,500

  83

  2.4

  Lambeth

  19,893

  353

  1.8

  6,980

  186

  2.7

  Lewisham

  22,913

  266

  1.2

  11,261

  376

  3.3

  Newham

  30,505

  577

  1.9

  16,593

  688

  4.1

  Southwark

  23,682

  416

  1.8

  9,572

  306

  3.2

  Tower Hamlets

  21,975

  421

  1.9

  13,717

  534

  3.9

  Wandsworth

  17,831

  228

  1.3

  9,617

  224

  2.3

  Westminster

  9,861

  175

  1.8

  7,804

  225

  2.9

  Outer London

  407,280

  6,067

  1.5

  265,339

  5,986

  2.3

  Barking and Dagenham

  18,433

  310

  1.7

  10,427

  301

  2.9

  Barnet

  26,441

  331

  1.3

  20,437

  427

  2.1

  Bexley

  22,874

  318

  1.4

  16,044

  287

  1.8

  Brent

  22,712

  411

  1.8

  13,984

  395

  2.8

  Bromley

  25,027

  668

  2.7

  19,662

  531

  2.7

  Croydon

  31,534

  321

  1.0

  16,152

  195

  1.2

  Ealing

  27,361

  284

  1.0

  14,487

  223

  1.5

  Enfield

  26,639

  287

  1.1

  19,568

  333

  1.7

  Greenwich

  21,702

  434

  2.0

  13,561

  375

  2.8

  Harrow

  20,100

  397

  2.0

  8,318

  260

  3.1

  Havering

  21,247

  354

  1.7

  14,886

  470

  3.2

  Hillingdon

  23,185

  293

  1.3

  15,265

  413

  2.7

  Hounslow

  19,924

  296

  1.5

  15,700

  357

  2.3

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  11,763

  150

  1.3

  8,287

  158

  1.9

  Merton

  16,048

  257

  1.6

  7,735

  256

  3.3

  Redbridge

  22,979

  128

  0.6

  17,731

  205

  1.2

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  12,318

  200

  1.6

  7,548

  231

  3.1

  Sutton

  14,941

  322

  2.2

  13,170

  245

  1.9

  Waltham Forest

  22,352

  306

  1.4

  12,377

  324

  2.6

  South East

  664,702

  10,360

  1.6

  471,304

  10,458

  2.2

  Bracknell Forest

  9,489

  157

  1.7

  6,096

  161

  2.6

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  8,686

  149

  1.7

  9,945

  224

  2.3

  Newbury

  12,527

  232

  1.9

  11,127

  233

  2.1

  Reading

  11,115

  232

  2.1

  6,180

  124

  2.0

  Slough

  11,121

  182

  1.6

  7,412

  191

  2.6

  Wokingham

  13,082

  241

  1.8

  10,460

  223

  2.1

  Milton Keynes

  22,415

  447

  2.0

  11,526

  396

  3.4

  Buckinghamshire

  43,009

  700

  1.6

  30,758

  501

  1.6

  Brighton and Hove

  18,335

  339

  1.8

  11,191

  255

  2.3

  East Sussex

  38,536

  545

  1.4

  26,358

  482

  1.8

  Portsmouth

  16,444

  155

  0.9

  9,593

  135

  1.4

  Southampton

  18,497

  163

  0.9

  11,790

  212

  1.8

  Hampshire

  105,282

  943

  0.9

  67,504

  1,080

  1.6

  Isle of Wight

  7,422

  157

  2.1

  11,435

  318

  2.8

  Medway

  25,570

  567

  2.2

  18,856

  539

  2.9

  Kent

  115,004

  1,961

  1.7

  88,966

  2,178

  2.4

  Oxfordshire

  45,468

  577

  1.3

  37,247

  865

  2.3

  Surrey

  80,752

  1,591

  2.0

  53,859

  1,236

  2.3

  West Sussex

  61,948

  1,022

  1.6

  41,001

  1,105

  2.7

  1 Not applicable (no schools of this type)

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census
  652W

  Nautical Studies GCSE
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the GCSE in nautical studies; and what consultation his Department has held on proposed changes. [115861]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is working with the awarding bodies to develop advice on the list of GCSE titles to be offered from 2001. No decisions have been reached at this stage. If proposals are made to remove titles from the approved list, QCA will seek the views of interested organisations before submitting final recommendations. We shall consider QCA's advice very carefully before decisions are made.

  ERASMUS
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many full-time higher education students took an ERASMUS year of study in another European country(a) outwards from the UK and (b) inwards to the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [116016]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: The latest available information on numbers of full-time higher education students in the ERASMUS programme is given in the following table.

  Year

  Outward mobility from UK

  Inward mobility to UK

  1994–95

  11,988

  18,315

  1995–96

  11,735

  21,808

  1996–97

  10,537

  19,602

  1997–98

  10,592

  20,769

  1998–99

  9,994

  121,240

  1 Provisional

  Literacy
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to tackle literacy problems among secondary school pupils. [114604]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral reply given to our hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) earlier today,Official Report, column 1102.

  Teachers (Development)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on continuing professional development for teachers. [114617]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are committed to supporting high-quality professional development to become an entitlement for every teacher. We are consulting on a draft framework for continuing professional development to provide the opportunity, support and recognition that teaching needs to become a learning profession.

  Schools (Sheffield, Heeley)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received in respect of(a) school closures, (b) school mergers and (c) changes in schools' catchment areas affecting the constituency of Sheffield, Heeley. [114623]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No representations have been received by my Department about school organisation matters in Sheffield, Heeley.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) men and (b) women were in an apprenticeship scheme in England and Wales on 1 March. [114594]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest date for which information is available on those participating in Modern Apprenticeships and National Traineeships is 26 December 1999, when there were 143,300 in Modern Apprenticeships, 47 per cent. of which were women, and 72,700 in National Traineeships, 56 per cent. of which were women.

  Modern Apprenticeships are a key part of the Government's response to the need to prepare young people for an economy based on high-level skills. We have recently announced a consultation on reforms to drive forward improvements to Modern Apprenticeships to enhance work based training opportunities enabling all young people to reach their potential and ensure economic success.

  As part of this National Traineeships and Modern Apprenticeships have been renamed as Foundation Modern Apprenticeships and Advanced Modern Apprenticeships.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the United Kingdom has to decommission nuclear warheads prior to the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in April. [115356]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are committed to the goal of global nuclear disarmament and take their responsibilities as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty very seriously. We have already given up our maritime tactical and air-launched nuclear capability and all these weapons have been dismantled. The Chevaline warheads from our previous strategic nuclear deterrent force, Polaris, are currently being dismantled. Trident is now our only nuclear system. We announced in the Strategic Defence Review that we will maintain fewer than 200 operationally available warheads for Trident. We now have significantly fewer nuclear weapons than any other Nuclear Weapon State. We have no plans to make any further reductions to our nuclear deterrent prior to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many bodies of Kosovar Albanians known to have been killed by Kosovan Serbs and Yugoslav police and armed forces since June 1998 have been found. [115333]

  Mr. Vaz
  The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has said that over 2,000 bodies have so far been exhumed from 195 grave sites by investigators working on behalf of The Tribunal. This is out of a total of 529 reported grave sites, most of which are still to be investigated. Work on remaining sites will resume in Spring this year. Besides known grave sites, other sites may come to light as work progresses, but a high proportion of bodies may never be recovered given the degree to which Serb forces attempted to destroy evidence.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of Kosovar Albanians forced out of Kosovo prior to the start of NATO's bombing campaign. [115332]

  Mr. Vaz
  Before the airstrikes began there were over 210,000 people internally displaced within Kosovo and 70,000 refugees outside Kosovo. The vast majority of the Internally Displaced Persons and 50,000 of the refugees were Kosovo Albanians.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Errors
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of(a) erroneous

  Table A: Overpayments

  Value of official error

  Value of customer error

  Benefit

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Contributory Benefits1

  17,218,844

  22,382,564

  14,800,517

  21,282,055

  28,484,420

  33,869,503

  Income Support

  67,923,629

  94,419,967

  71,461,623

  170,419,299

  198,510,053

  220,643,950

  Unemployment Benefit2

  50,235

  159,781

  7,804

  947,214

  909,263

  263,872

  Jobseekers Allowance

  739,134

  10,071,179

  9,530,671

  702,776

  19,057,220

  31,933,785

  Attendance Allowance

  2,003,042

  2,158,956

  2,109,577

  1,485,358

  4,080,296

  5,116,223

  Disability Living Allowance

  5,392,505

  11,078,403

  11,238,154

  3,666,447

  7,231,337

  8,273,408

  Invalid Care Allowance

  1,981,510

  4,553,788

  6,140,968

  8,090,321

  25,026,090

  21,726,441

  Child Benefit Directorate3

  —

  —

  9,599,275

  —

  —

  13,927,975

  Disability Working Allowance

  61,671

  102,279

  65,006

  62,183

  87,597

  126,510

  Family Credit

  1,704,039

  910,535

  881,523

  2,677,865

  5,093,301

  6,918,817

  Pensions Directorate4

  9,509,276

  11,544,820

  12,332,892

  1,639,642

  2,656,646

  8,328,301

  Earnings Top Up5

  —

  10,010

  4,543

  —

  12,560

  39,557

  1 Includes contributory benefits processed in District offices: Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, Retirement Pension, Widows Benefit, Attendance Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance, Mobility Allowance, Family Credit, Invalid Care Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Disability Working Allowance, Child Benefit, Industrial Injuries Death Benefit, Maternity Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Industrial Injuries Death Benefit, Earnings Top Up, Reduced Earnings Allowance, Guardians Allowance.

  2 Unemployment Benefit ceased to be paid on the introduction of JSA in 1996 although some retrospective overpayments are still identified.

  3 Includes Child Benefit, One Parent Benefit and Guardians Allowance—records not kept in 1996–97 or 1997–98.

  4 Includes Retirement Pensions, Widows Benefit, Attendance Allowance and Overseas Benefits.

  5 Introduced in October 1996 but no overpayments recorded until 1997–98.

  Note:

  Figures include non-recoverable overpayments written-off under an Easements Package agreed with Treasury
  656W
  underpayment and (b) erroneous overpayment arising as a result of error by (i) officials and (ii) customers, for each benefit administered by his Department for each of the last three years. [114669]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 22 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the amount of (i) erroneous underpayment and (ii) erroneous overpayment arising as a result of error by (a) officials and (b) customers, for each benefit administered by his Department for each of the last three years.
  The figures for overpayments represent the value of debt which has to be recorded. For most benefits (or grouping of benefits) I can provide the information you have asked for in full and this is set out in table A. Where I can provide you with partial data this is explained in the note to table A.
  From the figures in table A you will note that the value of overpayments is increasing. This increase in the value of debt reflects an increase in the identification and processing of overpayments which, in turn, results from increased activity on programme protection initiatives to drive down the levels of fraud and error. The number of overpayment cases processed (for all benefits) has increased from 0.9 million cases in 1996/97 to 1.2 million cases in 1998/99.
  When an underpayment is found the payment is corrected straight away and noted on the individual file. However, the information is not collated centrally. The information I can provide you with is therefore limited, and confined to those benefits where the Agency conducts checking regimes which provide a statistically valid estimate of underpayments. This information is set out in table B which also carries explanatory notes.
  I hope this is helpful.
  657W

  Table B: Underpayments

  £ million

  Benefit of official error

  Value of customer error

  Benefit

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Income Support

  192.8

  165.4

  210.9

  n/a

  n/a

  40.0

  Jobseekers Allowance

  1—

  20.1

  22.2

  n/a

  n/a

  4.0

  Incapacity Benefit

  106.4

  64.8

  77.6

  n/a

  n/a

  2—

  1 Jobseekers Allowance was introduced during 1996–97.

  2 Incapacity Benefit is not subject to Area Benefit Reviews.

  Notes:

  1. These figures are estimates of the monetary value of underpayments based on a statistical sample of each benefit which is checked for customer error or official error.

  2. The estimate of customer error is obtained from Area Benefit Reviews. 1998–99 is the first full year of these reviews.

  3. The estimate of official error is obtained from Quality Support checks.

  4. The values are estimated to 0.1 per cent. of million.

  War Veterans' Widows
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what financial assistance is available to the widow of a war veteran to cover funeral costs. [115937]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the War Pensions Scheme1 the Secretary of State has the discretion to meet any reasonable expenses relating to the funeral of a former member of the Armed Forces provided
  the death was due to service; or
  at the time of death the person was provided with National Health Service accommodation or hospital in-patient treatment for their war pensioned disablement.

  The Social Fund Funeral Payment scheme2 provides help with funeral expenses where someone has died and there are insufficient funds available. The person seeking help must have been awarded a qualifying income-related benefit or tax credit and have good reason for taking responsibility for the funeral arrangements. The qualifying benefits/tax credits are: Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Working Families' Tax Credit, Disabled Persons' Tax Credit, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit.

  Any award from the Social Fund would be deducted from the amount payable under the War Pensions Scheme.
  Notes:
  1 The Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983.
  2 Social Fund, Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987.

  Departmental Programme Protection Fund
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 811W, on the Departmental Programme Protection Fund, if he will disaggregate the budget by type of expenditure. [116057]

  Mr. Rooker
  The budget for 1999–2000 has been split as follows:

  £ million

  DSS administration costs

  370.7

  Non DSS administration costs

  93.5

  Total

  464.2

  Pensioners (Hampshire)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners there are in(a) Hampshire and (b) each local authority in Hampshire, including the unitary authorities of Southampton and Portsmouth, indicating the age distribution, broken down by the number aged (i) 75 to 79 and (ii) 80 and older in each area. [116022]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Estimated resident population of persons of pensionable age in Hampshire, Hampshire Local Authorities, Southampton UA and Portsmouth UA, mid-1998,

  Thousand

  Area

  75–79

  80+

  Hampshire County1

  41.0

  48.6

  Basingstoke and Deane

  3.8

  4.0

  East Hampshire

  3.4

  4.5

  Eastleigh

  3.3

  3.7

  Fareham

  3.6

  4.5

  Gosport

  2.5

  2.9

  Hart

  2.1

  2.5

  Havant

  4.7

  4.8

  New Forest

  8.2

  10.1

  Rushmoor

  2.1

  2.7

  Test Valley

  3.4

  4.0

  Winchester

  3.9

  5.1

  Portsmouth UA

  6.8

  8.3

  Southampton UA

  7.3

  8.6

  Notes:

  1. Hampshire County does not include Southampton UA and Portsmouth UA

  2. Estimates supplied by the Office for National Statistics

  National Benefits Intelligence Unit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what grade of civil servant will head the National Benefits Intelligence Unit; [116024]

  (2) how many years of experience in counter-fraud work the head of the new National Benefits Intelligence Unit is required to have. [116026]

  Mr. Rooker
  The head of the National Benefits Intelligence Unit will be appointed to the senior civil service at Grade 5 level as will the head of the Central Organised Fraud Investigation Unit.
  659W
  Both posts will be advertised in the national press, and will be open to candidates with a broad range of backgrounds and experience.

  While a specific number of years served will not be a requirement, previous experience will be an important factor in the selection process along with other factors necessary in making an appointment at senior civil service level.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, column 810W, on fraudulent housing benefit claims, if he will list the new powers given to local authorities to (a) control direct payments of housing benefit more tightly, (b) to recover overpayments more easily and (c) to require landlords to provide information. [116058]

  £

  Benefit

  Rate when introduced

  Date of introduction

  Current rate

  Value at April 2000 if increased in line with prices since date introduced

  Income Support (IS)

  3,000

  April 1988

  3,000

  4,701.40

  Lower Capital Limit

  6,000

  April 1988

  8,000

  9,402,65

  Upper Capital Limit

  8,000

  April 1990

  8,000

  11,382.15

  Housing Benefit (HB) Capital Limits

  3,000

  April 1988

  3,000

  4,701.40

  6,000

  April 1988

  16,000

  9,402.65

  8,000

  May 1988

  16,000

  12,536.85

  16,000

  April 1990

  16,000

  22,764.45

  Community Charge Benefit/Council Tax Benefit Capital Limits

  16,000

  April 1990

  16,000

  22,764.45

  Child's Capital Limits

  3,000

  April 1988

  3,000

  4,701.40

  IS/HB for Residential Care and Nursing Homes Capital Limits

  Upper

  16,000

  April 1996

  16,000

  17,437,60

  Lower

  10,000

  April 1996

  10,000

  10,898.55

  Social Fund Capital Limits

  All ages

  500

  April 1988

  500

  783.55

  Aged 60 and over

  1,000

  April 1990

  1,000

  1,422.75

  Notes:

  1. The figures are rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating date.

  2. For income-related benefits the ROSSI index (Retail Price Index less rent, local taxes and mortgage interest payments), as published by the Official for National Statistics, is used.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion and number of(a) single pensioners who receive a total income below £90 per week after housing costs and (b) pensioner couples who receive a total income below £135 per week after housing costs. [115744]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Single pensioners with total net income after housing costs less than £90

  Pensioner couples with total net income after housing costs less than £135

  Number

  2,190,000

  630,000

  Proportion (percentage)

  52

  24

  660W
  Angela Eagle
  Powers enabling local authorities (LAs) to control direct payments of benefit more tightly were introduced by the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 1997. (SI 1997 No.2434).

  The Housing Benefit (Recovery of Overpayments) Regulations 1997, gave LAs the power to recover overpayments more easily. (SI 1997 No.2435).

  The Housing Benefit (Information from Landlords and Agents) Regulations 1997 provide for LAs to require information from landlords and agents. (SI 1997 No. 2436).

  Benefit Ceilings
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the income and capital ceilings of each relevant benefit were established; and if he will calculate the value when set at current prices of each ceiling. [115905]

  Angela EagleM
  The information is in the table.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are for Great Britain.

  2. Single pensioners are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over state pension age (65 for men, 60 for women); pensioner couples are defined as couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  3. Total net income is defined as net income after housing costs, and is based on September 1999 prices, uprated from 1997–98 data using the Retail Prices Index all items excluding housing costs. Therefore, this analysis assumes that the real value of pensioners' net incomes after housing costs is the same in September 1999 as in 1997–98, whereas in practice they would have tended to have risen.

  4. Estimates are given to the nearest 10,000 or 1 per cent., but are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1997–98.

  State Pension
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) gross and (b) net cost, after taking account of increased taxation receipts and means-tested benefits savings, of raising the basic state pension to £90 per week for a single person and £135 for a pensioner couple; and what increase in National Insurance contribution rates would be required from (i) employers and (ii) employees to meet this cost. [115743]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table:

  Cost of increasing the basic state pension to £90 and £135 per week, 2000–01

  £ million

  Gross cost

  11,790

  Cost net of means-tested benefits

  9,210

  Costs net of means-tested benefits and income tax

  8,160

  Notes:

  1. Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million and are in 2000–01 benefit rates.

  2. Costs include benefits whose rates are statutorily linked to the basic state pension rate, such as Widow's Benefits and Incapacity Benefit.

  3. Gross costs and changes in National Insurance contribution rates have been supplied by the Government Actuary' Department.

  4. Offsetting means-tested benefit savings have been calculated using the Department's 2000–01 Policy Simulation Model.

  5. Income tax savings have been estimated by the Inland Revenue.

  In order to meet the gross cost from the National Insurance Fund, either employers' National Insurance contribution rates would have to rise by 3.9 percentage points, or employees' National Insurance rates would have to rise by 4.5 percentage points.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) gross and (b) net cost, after taking account of increased taxation receipts and means-tested benefits savings, of raising (i) the Minimum Income Guarantee and (ii) Income Support for people aged 60 years and over to £90 per week for single pensioners and £135 for pensioner couples; and how many more pensioners would be eligible for Income Support at these levels. [115742]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Minimum Income Guarantee is payable through Income Support to people aged 60 and over. Means-tested benefits are calculated net of tax and do not affect tax revenue. The information is in the tables.

  An estimate of the effects on caseload and expenditure of an increase of £90 a week for single pensioners and £135 a week for couples in the Minimum Income guarantee levels, and the consequential increases to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit

  Floaters-on

  Gainers

  Total

  Caseload (Thousand)

  Income Support

  123

  1,433

  1,557

  Housing Benefit

  22

  709

  731

  Council Tax Benefit

  33

  1,004

  1,037

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Income Support

  40

  460

  500

  Housing Benefit

  5

  175

  180

  Council Tax Benefit

  1—

  80

  80

  1 Denotes negligible expenditure of less than £2.5 million

  662W

  A modelled estimate of the numbers of people eligible for Income Support following the change

  Thousand

  Newly entitled pensioners

  Income Support

  220

  Housing Benefit

  45

  Council Tax Benefit

  115

  Notes:

  1. Caseloads are rounded to the nearest 1,000, and expenditure to the nearest £5 million.

  2. Costs net of means-tested benefits have been calculated using the Policy Simulation Model based on the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey uprated to 2000–01, and calibrated to November 1999 PBR forecasts.

  3. Floaters-on are by number of claims rather than total numbers of people affected, but an indication rounded to the nearest 5,000 has been given of how many pensioners would become entitled, based on the 1997–98 FRS survey.

  4. Caseload figures exclude Residential Care and Nursing Home cases.

  5. Totals may differ due to rounding.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the status is of Winter Fuel Payments following the European Court judgment of 16 December 1999; and when he expects to complete the payments to those who are eligible. [115618]

  Angela Eagle
  Following the judgment in the case of Taylor, the age at which Winter Fuel Payments can be made will be equalised at 60, and the need to be in receipt of a qualifying benefit will be removed. As before, these payments are intended to people who are ordinarily resident in Great Britain.

  Payments to those newly eligible will be made as soon as possible. To ensure that these payments are made correctly, it is necessary to determine names and addresses. Some people will be identified through current Departmental records, but the majority may have had no contact with the Department for a long period, and information held may not be up to date. Therefore, there is a need to introduce a claims process to determine precise entitlement.

  The process needed to be developed carefully. The Benefits Agency have been working on this and other operational issues to determine the best way to deliver the payments. Details of delivery arrangements will be announced shortly.

  In-work Support
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the sources of in-work support for people without dependent children; and if he will make a statement. [115108]

  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to providing a better deal for all working people including those without dependent children. In the longer term we are attracted to the idea of extending the principle of tax credits to all low-income households through an Employment Tax Credit. The new Employment Credit for over 50s is one of the first steps in this process.
  663W
  The New Deal 50 plus is being introduced nationally at the beginning of April. This is aimed at people aged 50 or over who have been claiming benefits for at least six months and their dependent partners. It can provide an Employment Credit of £60 a week for up to 52 weeks for those taking up full-time work and £40 a week for part-time work and this is available to people without dependent children.

  The Disabled Persons Tax Credit replaced the Disability Working Allowance. It has higher income thresholds and a lower taper and is available to disabled workers without dependent children. It currently provides a guaranteed income of at least £155 a week for a single person and £230 a week for a couple and from April it will be paid through the wage packet.

  People without dependent children can claim Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit to help with housing costs while working. They can also claim the four-week Housing Benefit extended payment and owner-occupiers without dependent children will be able to benefit from the new four week run-on of mortgage interest support when this is introduced in April 2001.

  In-work help with prescriptions and NHS charges under the NHS low-income scheme is available to people without dependent children.

  People without dependent children can receive a Jobmatch allowance of £50 a week for six months to encourage them to take up part-time jobs.

  Other sources of support such as Invalid Care Allowance, providing the earnings do not exceed £50 a week after allowable expenses, Disability Living Allowance, Widow's Pension and Retirement Pension are also available to people without children irrespective of whether or not they are working.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average number of days taken on sick leave per police officer for each police force in England for the latest year for which figures are available. [116055]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The average number of days taken on sick leave per police officer in each force in England in 1998–99 is shown in the table, which also includes data on the four forces in Wales.

  Police days lost through sickness

  Average police strength

  Average days sick per officer

  Avon and Somerset

  31,470

  3,012

  10.4

  Bedfordshire

  14,572

  1,041

  14.0

  Cambridgeshire

  15,393

  1,295

  11.9

  Cheshire

  28,452

  2,111

  13.5

  City of London

  10,449

  790

  13.2

  Cleveland

  17,486

  1,471

  11.9

  Cumbria

  11,732

  1,160

  10.1

  Derbyshire

  21,753

  1,777

  12.2

  Devon and Cornwall

  31,228

  2,946

  10.6

  Dorset

  12,967

  1,303

  10.0

  Durham

  15,974

  1,552

  10.3

  Dyfed-Powys

  9,966

  1,044

  9.5

  664W

  Police days lost through sickness

  Average police strength

  Average days sick per officer

  Essex

  38,748

  2,936

  13.2

  Gloucestershire

  12,964

  1,113

  11.6

  Greater Manchester

  97,682

  6,913

  14.1

  Gwent

  14,674

  1,250

  11.7

  Hampshire

  33,221

  3,470

  9.6

  Hertfordshire

  18,952

  1,752

  10.8

  Humberside

  17,142

  2,021

  8.5

  Kent

  36,500

  3,269

  11.2

  Lancashire

  39,188

  3,331

  11.8

  Leicestershire

  24,235

  2,037

  11.9

  Lincolnshire

  15.609

  1,171

  13.3

  Merseyside

  49,525

  4,373

  11.3

  Metropolitan Police

  289,791

  26,566

  10.9

  Norfolk

  16,333

  1,426

  11.5

  North Wales

  16,759

  1,416

  11.8

  North Yorkshire

  16,381

  1,360

  12.0

  Northamptonshire

  12,530

  1,167

  10.7

  Northumbria

  44,145

  3,854

  11.5

  Nottinghamshire

  31,128

  2,248

  13.8

  South Wales

  48,958

  2,989

  16.4

  South Yorkshire

  38,349

  3,165

  12.1

  Staffordshire

  28,418

  2,279

  12.5

  Suffolk

  11,668

  1,195

  9.8

  Surrey

  17,332

  16,80

  10.3

  Sussex

  31,918

  2,962

  10.8

  Thames Valley

  49,894

  3,822

  13.1

  Warwickshire

  12,495

  925

  13.5

  West Mercia

  22,796

  2,033

  11.2

  West Midlands

  88,341

  7,250

  12.2

  West Yorkshire

  59,911

  5,053

  11.9

  Wiltshire

  11,111

  1,169

  9.5

  England and Wales Total

  1,468,140

  125,695

  11.7

  Criminal Record Checks
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from(a) individuals and (b) organisations expressing concern about the £10 levy for the criminal record checks; what plans he has to lower this charge in respect of inquiries by charities and voluntary organisations; and if he will make a statement. [115923]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received a substantial number of letters from individuals and organisations on this matter. When the Criminal Records Bureau comes into operation, it will be expected to recover its costs through charges for the certificates that it will issue, on application, to individuals. It will be for employers and organisations to decide whether to reimburse the cost. Until the Bureau's operating costs have been determined, it will not be possible to fix the charges, but the cost has previously been estimated at between £5 and £10, depending upon the type of certificate. We have no plans to lower the charge in respect of those applying from the voluntary sector. This presents substantial problems of principle and would inevitably increase costs for the public purse or for other applicants for certificates. We have made clear our determination to keep the cost as low as possible.

  Referendum Campaigns
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to public funds of material issued by Her Majesty's Government during the recent referendum campaigns in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) London. [115826]
  665W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: The total amount spent by the Government on publicity in connection with each of the four referendum campaigns in 1997–98 is given in the table:

  £

  Scotland

  1,274,706

  Wales

  608,774

  London

  1,600,000

  Northern Ireland

  569,600

  Campsfield House
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of detainees held at Campsfield House had been detained for longer than six months in each quarter since June 1996. [115374]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not collected but the following table, extracted from records at Campsfield House, shows the length of detention at that centre. The table does not take account of time that may have been spent in detention before arrival at Campsfield House.

  6 to 9 months

  9 to 12 months

  Over 12 months

  Number of detainees

  1996

  June

  15

  7

  4

  192

  July

  15

  8

  3

  195

  August

  22

  4

  5

  197

  September

  25

  4

  5

  198

  October

  25

  8

  7

  197

  November

  21

  9

  5

  196

  December

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1997

  January

  25

  8

  2

  191

  February

  25

  6

  1

  195

  March

  25

  8

  2

  196

  April

  18

  8

  4

  198

  May

  15

  6

  1

  193

  June

  5

  6

  3

  195

  July

  12

  6

  2

  195

  August

  7

  4

  1

  190

  September

  6

  0

  2

  108

  October

  5

  1

  2

  105

  November

  7

  2

  1

  109

  December

  3

  2

  1

  110

  1998

  January

  2

  1

  0

  109

  February

  5

  0

  0

  108

  March

  6

  1

  0

  109

  April

  7

  0

  0

  110

  May

  6

  1

  0

  110

  June

  7

  2

  0

  109

  July

  6

  3

  0

  110

  August

  4

  2

  1

  121

  September

  4

  2

  2

  162

  October

  3

  2

  2

  184

  November

  6

  1

  2

  183

  December

  4

  1

  3

  181

  1999

  January

  6

  0

  2

  181

  February

  6

  2

  2

  183

  March

  7

  2

  1

  184

  April

  6

  1

  0

  184

  May

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  666W

  6 to 9 months

  9 to 12 months

  Over 12 months

  Number of detainees

  June

  5

  3

  0

  184

  July

  6

  0

  0

  175

  August

  8

  1

  0

  181

  September

  10

  2

  0

  180

  October

  8

  3

  0

  184

  November

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  December

  8

  4

  1

  181

  2000

  January

  7

  5

  1

  184

  1 Not available

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for how many weeks the dedicated team in IND dealing with the backlog of general and settlement casework has been operating; and how many cases have been determined in each of these weeks; [115404]

  (2) how many staff have been allocated to the dedicated team tackling the backlog of general and settlement casework within IND. [115405]

  Mrs. Roche
  A dedicated team, The After-Entry Clearance Team (AECT), was set up in April 1999 specifically to tackle the backlog of general and settlement casework and consists of 12 staff. The available information on output is set out in the table which shows that since they were established they have completed over 17,650 cases.

  Monthly output of AECT 1999–2000

  Month

  Output

  1999

  April

  541

  May

  1,996

  June

  1,662

  July

  1,526

  August

  1,459

  September

  2,198

  October

  1,841

  November

  1,784

  December

  1,404

  2000

  January

  1,722

  February

  1,523

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are currently in the backlog of general and settlement casework; and what is the target date for clearing them. [115380]

  Mrs. Roche
  The backlog of general and settlement cases, which are in the Case Allocation Unit and the Work in Progress store awaiting action by caseworkers, is currently 29,000. We aim to clear this to fractional levels by the summer.

  Angola
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been
  667W
  (a) removed and (b) deported to Angola in each of the last five years; and if it is his policy to return people to that country. [115350]

  Mrs. Roche
  The only information available relates to the number of Angolans removed from the United Kingdom. To the nearest five, 130 Angolan nationals were removed in 1995, 140 in 1996, 180 in 1997 and 95 in 1998. Regrettably data for 1999 are not yet available. In addition, these removal figures may not include all dependants. Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide an accurate breakdown between the number of people removed and the number deported; similarly it is not possible to confirm how many of the people removed from the United Kingdom were returned to Angola. This information could be obtained only by examining individual case files.

  Returns to Angola are considered on a case-by-case basis after a careful assessment of the risk to the individual, taking account of the information and advice about conditions in Angola which has been made available by a range of international and non-governmental organisations. No one is returned unless it is clear that it is safe to do so.

  Elderly People (Fear of Crime)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out(a) baseline data for 1997 and (b) data for subsequent years for his Department's measurement of fear of crime among the elderly as included in the poverty audit, "Opportunity for All". [116025]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The First Annual Report, "Opportunity for All: Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion", was published in September 1999. The indicator for fear of crime and the elderly is the proportion of those aged 60 years or over whose lives are greatly affected by fear of crime. The 1998 British Crime Survey reported that 10 per cent. of people in that age group said that their own quality of life was greatly affected by fear of crime.

  This estimate is based on a sample of adults within the age group living in private households in England and Wales. The responses are on a scale of one to 10, where one is no effect and 10 is total effect on the quality of their lives. The definition of "greatly affected" are those who give scores of eight, nine or 10 on the scale. The question is being repeated in the 2000 British Crime Survey.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers had(a) deportation and (b) enforcement action initiated against them in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and, of those, how many left the United Kingdom. [115972]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on enforcement action initiated, comprising action taken under illegal entry and deportation procedures, including figures showing the number of cases initiated against persons who had applied for asylum at some stage, can be found in the Command Paper, "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, 1998" (Table 7.1) for 1995 and Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, First Half 1999" (Table 5.1) for 1996 668W
  to first half 1999. Copies of those publications are in the Library. It should be noted that the relevant figures therein are presented by the date that enforcement action was initiated. This date may be prior to, after, or the same as, the date of the asylum decision, where such a decision has been taken. Enforcement statistics do not include removal action initiated against failed port asylum applicants under port procedures.

  Comprehensive data are not available on persons removed or departing voluntarily following the initiation of enforcement action against them by the date that such action was initiated. Additionally, it is not known how many persons have left the country voluntarily without notifying the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Figures are not, therefore, available on the numbers of failed asylum seekers leaving the United Kingdom who had enforcement action initiated against them in the last five years.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers are unlawfully at large in the United Kingdom. [115975]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is not known how many asylum applicants, in total, leave the country and it is not, therefore, possible to state how many failed asylum applicants remain unlawfully in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each of the last five years for which figures are available, the criminal offences committed by(a) asylum seekers whose applications had not been determined and (b) failed asylum seekers, indicating the (i) maximum and (ii) average sentence passed in respect of each type of offence. [115987]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not available centrally.

  The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not hold information about the characteristics of individual cases apart from those that are evident from the description of the offence with which the defendant has been charged.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities have applied to his Department to be placed on the list of authorities which will not be required to accept further asylum seekers; which of those local authorities have had their applications accepted; and if he will make a statement. [115979]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is no list of local authorities that will not be required to accept further asylum seekers. Some months ago local authorities were invited to inform the National Asylum Support Service if they felt they should be considered for exemption from accepting any further asylum seekers under the statutory interim arrangements should the Government decide to make regulations or make Directions specifying the maximum number of asylum seekers that any given local authority would need to support.
  669W
  In reply the following local authorities listed expressed the view that supporting further asylum seekers would cause them great difficulties.

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Bedford Borough Council

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Borough of Broxbourne

  Canterbury City Council

  Caradon District Council

  Carrick District Council

  Crawley Borough Council

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  Isle of Wight Council

  The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Lambeth Social Services

  New Forest District Council

  Norfolk County Council Social Services

  Northampton Borough Council and other Districts in the Country of Northamptonshire

  Oxford City Council

  Oxfordshire County Council

  London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

  Shepway District Council

  Slough Borough Council

  South Cambridgeshire District Council

  Thurrock Council

  City of Westminster

  West Sussex County Council

  Wycombe District Council.

  The Government have noted the views of these Councils but have reached no conclusion about whether, were they to exercise the relevant powers, they should be exempted from accepting further asylum seekers.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average waiting time for an initial decision in respect of claims for political asylum in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000 to date; [116023]

  (2) what was the average time taken, in each of the last three years, to determine (a) an initial application for asylum and (b) an appeal from asylum seekers to whom the special appeals procedure in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 was applied. [115985]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the table. The figures were calculated by taking the mean length of time between the date that the asylum application was lodged and the date of the initial decision. The figures relate to asylum applications lodged by principal applicants only.

  The information on appeals is not available in this format for the time period. The estimated waiting time for an appeal to be determined by an adjudicator was around 12 weeks at the end of February 2000 (this figure is based on an imputed calculation).
  670W

  Average time to initial decision, in months, 1996–99 1,2,3

  Year

  All application

  Applications lodged pre July 1993

  Applications lodged post July 1993

  1996

  17

  52

  11

  1997

  22

  64

  14

  1998

  17

  78

  12

  19994

  35

  91

  16

  1 Excluding dependants

  2 Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is recorded

  3 The average length of time (in months) is calculated for date application is lodged to the date of initial decision, and relates to the year in which the decisions were made

  4 As at December 1999, excludes cases awaiting an initial decision.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amount(a) spent, (b) claimed and (c) allocated to each council in the United Kingdom in respect of expenditure on asylum seekers in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000. [115977]

  Mrs. Roche
  Payments to local authorities for the support of asylum seekers for the year 1998–99 were the responsibility of the Department of Health. Three grants were payable—one for supporting adults, one for supporting families and one for supporting unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The Department of Health is currently reconciling, in the light of the audit certificates now being provided, the amount claimed by authorities and the payments made to authorities. It is, therefore, not possible at the moment to give the full information requested as the amounts may be increased or reduced as a result of audit. I will write to the hon. Member with the fullest information as soon as possible.

  Since 1 April 1999, the Home Office has been responsible for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of supporting asylum seekers. Costs for the period 1 April-5 December are on the basis of a Special Grant Report. The table shows the amount of gross expenditure identified by local authorities for that period and the amount they have claimed in accordance with the grant rules. All claims will be met in full. These payments will be subject to audit by District Auditors and may be subject to variation in light of the findings of the auditors. Full information for the period 6 December 1999–31 March 2000 is not yet available.

  Asylum support 1 April 1999 to 5 December 1999

  Local authority

  Gross expenditure

  Claim

  Barking and Dagenham

  7,262,776

  7,002,166

  Barnet

  4,504,399

  3,895,802

  Barnsley

  48,103

  49,590

  Bath and North East Somerset

  18,025

  18,025

  Bedford

  694,866

  668,890

  Birmingham

  1,530,552

  1,530,552

  Blackburn with Darwen

  7,555

  7,555

  Blackpool

  5,776

  5,222

  Bexley

  693,927

  612,519

  Bolton Metro

  44,884

  44,884

  Bournemouth

  111,125

  111,125

  Bracknell Forest

  11,484

  11,484

  Bradford

  123,974

  121,670

  Brent

  5,785,782

  5,273,406

  Brighton and Hove

  453,109

  447,379

  Bristol City

  581,165

  581,165

  Bromley

  1,697,878

  1,530,850

  Buckinghamshire

  80,601

  77,280

  Bury

  11,784

  9,921

  Calderdale

  34,616

  34,616

  671W

  Asylum support 1 April 1999 to 5 December 1999

  Local authority

  Gross expenditure

  Claim

  Cambridgeshire

  477,531

  477,531

  Camden

  7,802,684

  5,871,860

  Cheshire

  144,444

  134,503

  Cornwall

  760

  760

  Corporation of London

  757,500

  505,000

  Coventry

  203,990

  134,830

  Croydon

  2,129,687

  2,090,070

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  Darlington

  2,561

  2,561

  Derby

  68,571

  68,571

  Derbyshire

  44,760

  44,760

  Devon

  8,768

  8,768

  Doncaster

  41,166

  41,166

  Dorset

  6,271

  5,880

  Dudley

  49,057

  49,057

  Durham

  6,396

  6,396

  Ealing

  3,469,338

  3,268,448

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  33,526

  31,091

  East Sussex

  249,979

  252,289

  Enfield

  5,426,810

  4,955,507

  Essex

  577,911

  560,931

  Gateshead

  39,845

  39,845

  Gloucestershire

  157,868

  157,868

  Greenwich

  2,910,299

  2,910,299

  Hackney

  6,474,129

  6,348,793

  Halton

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8,286,810

  6,553,030

  Hampshire

  187,760

  173,057

  Haringey

  5,447,187

  4,423,740

  Harrow

  2,560,297

  2,076,459

  Hartlepool

  —

  —

  Havering

  1,314,517

  987,840

  Herefordshire

  10,058

  10,058

  Hertfordshire

  1,128,989

  1,128,989

  Hillingdon

  4,675,112

  4,240,593

  Hounslow

  3,358,880

  3,007,750

  Islington

  12,709,181

  11,186,794

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,540,918

  4,906,980

  Kent

  7,994,035

  7,995,905

  Kingston upon Hull

  254,321

  192,640

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,124,800

  767,520

  Kirklees

  155,742

  151,200

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  8,743,665

  8,856,975

  Lancashire

  80,376

  73,458

  Leeds

  170,701

  170,701

  Leicester

  651,888

  605,463

  Leicestershire

  339,357

  303,042

  Lewisham

  4,885,567

  4,928,599

  Lincolnshire

  189,264

  189,264

  Liverpool

  227,703

  227,703

  Luton

  678,245

  678,245

  Manchester

  1,330,023

  1,298,648

  Medway

  153,841

  139,011

  Merton

  2,799,559

  2,491,867

  Middlesbrough

  101,241

  101,241

  Milton Keynes

  600,771

  548,045

  City of Newcastle

  335,340

  335,340

  Newham

  14,174,851

  14,174,851

  Norfolk

  266,820

  266,820

  North East Lincolnshire

  189,909

  151,740

  North Lincolnshire

  8,890

  8,890

  North Somerset

  31,081

  29,680

  North Tyneside

  22,661

  21,892

  North Yorkshire

  11,160

  11,160

  Northamptonshie

  5,109,145

  5,109,145

  Northumberland

  4,315

  4,315

  Nottingham

  137,918

  95,356

  Nottinghamshire

  118,884

  111,907

  Oldham

  8,165

  8,165

  Oxfordshire

  2,257,421

  2,227,141

  Peterborough

  104,290

  104,290

  672W

  Asylum support 1 April 1999 to 5 December 1999

  Local authority

  Gross expenditure

  Claim

  Plymouth

  52,660

  52,228

  Poole

  60,198

  28,393

  Portsmouth

  244,646

  211,460

  Reading

  645,848

  642,235

  Redbridge

  3,853,419

  3,832,621

  Redcar and Cleveland

  86,139

  84,978

  Richmond upon Thames

  4,110,282

  1,688,699

  Rochdale

  36,555

  28,941

  Rotherham

  52,383

  44,160

  Rutland

  30,312

  30,312

  Salford

  99,717

  99,717

  Sandwell

  246,707

  225,770

  Sefton

  25,374

  19,160

  Sheffield

  1,266,016

  1,210,780

  Shropshire

  10,877

  10,877

  Slough

  3,421,279

  2,817,100

  Solihull

  10,936

  10,640

  Somerset

  28,220

  17,520

  South Gloucestershire

  132,234

  82,284

  South Tyneside

  23,499

  22,557

  Southampton

  140,048

  104,048

  Southend on Sea

  611,023

  611,023

  Southwark

  9,288,505

  8,534,740

  Staffordshire

  281,125

  279,140

  Stockport

  73,125

  73,125

  Stockton on Tees

  18,889

  18,889

  Stoke on Trent

  51,842

  48,576

  Suffolk

  87,992

  81,754

  Sunderland

  17,683

  17,683

  Surrey

  801,783

  616,380

  Sutton

  1,613,975

  1,405,400

  Swindon

  152,652

  152,652

  Tameside

  4,607

  3,500

  Telford and Wrekin

  28,485

  24,401

  Thurrock

  860,371

  842,400

  Torbay

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  1,940,910

  1,796,280

  Trafford

  111,728

  97,368

  Wakefield

  116,607

  107,473

  Walsall

  46,737

  40,664

  Waltham Forest

  5,528,618

  5,528,618

  Wandsworth

  4,256,996

  2,621,705

  Warrington

  40,426

  35,000

  Warwickshire

  274,806

  269,381

  West Berkshire

  5,655

  5,655

  West Sussex

  451,646

  422,860

  Westminster

  9,725,783

  6,714,560

  Wigan

  5,502

  5,502

  Wiltshire

  108,915

  101,944

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  53,401

  46,840

  Wirral

  630

  630

  Wokingham

  53,028

  53,028

  Worcestershire

  336,953

  200,953

  York

  6,251

  6,251

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  36,728

  36,728

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  Total

  205,877,613

  183,177,970

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals against asylum decisios were(a) lodged and (b) heard in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [115968]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information regarding asylum appeals for each of the years 1994–98 is given in Table 8.1 of the Home Office statistical bulletins, "Asylum Statistics
  673W
  United Kingdom" 1995, 1996 and 1998, issues 9/96, 15/97 and 10/99, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information for 1999 will be published in the latest issue of the bulletin in June of this year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers left the United Kingdom in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [115978]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information is not recorded centrally on the numbers of in-country asylum applicants who depart voluntarily before enforcement action is initiated against them. Nor is it known how many asylum applicants leave the country voluntarily without notifying the Immigration and National Directorate of their departure. It is not, therefore, possible to give a total figure for asylum seekers leaving the United Kingdom.

  The available information, relating to removals and known voluntary departures for 1995–99 under port and enforcement procedures of persons who have applied for asylum at some stage, is given in the table. For port asylum applicants, the figures include persons departing voluntarily up to and including the point of notification of the decision on the asylum application and those persons who have had their asylum application refused and leave the country before they have exhausted their rights of appeal. For in-country applicants, the figures exclude persons departing voluntarily before the initiation of enforcement action.

  Failed asylum seekers are removed only once all their rights of appeal in the United Kingdom have been exhausted. It should be noted that the figures may include some persons who withdrew their asylum application or appeal before a decision or determination had been reached.

  Removals and voluntary departures1 of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1995–99

  Year

  Number

  1995

  3,180

  1996

  4,840

  1997

  7,160

  1998

  6,900

  19992

  7,645

  1 For port asylum applicants, the data include persons departing voluntarily up to and including the point of notification of the decision on the asylum application and those persons who have had their asylum application refused and leave the country before they have exhausted their rights of appeal. For in-country applicants, the data exclude persons departing voluntarily before the initiation of enforcement action.

  2 1999 data are provisional.

  Note:

  Data are rounded to 5.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the monthly cost of maintaining(a) adult asylum seekers, (b) child asylum seekers and (c) asylum seeking families (i) in detention, (ii) under the new support arrangements to be brought in from 3 April and (iii) under the interim arrangements made under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [115973]
  674W
  Mrs. Roche
  The monthly direct cost of an available place in an immigration detention centre comes to just under £2,500. No differentiation is made between the cost of holding adults, children or families.

  The total average cost to the immigration service of holding a detainee is slightly over £5,000 per month. This represents the full cost of immigration detention, including the cost of escorting detainees, the cost of holding people in police cells and secondary examination areas, and management and other overheads.

  Unaccompanied children who claim asylum are not included in the interim arrangements made under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, nor are they included in the new support arrangements.

  Under the interim arrangements made under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Home Office makes available to local authorities against certified claims a grant of up to £650 per month for a single asylum seeker and up to £950 per month for a family unit.

  Under the new asylum seeker support arrangements to be phased in from 3 April 2000 destitute asylum seekers will be provided with accommodation and essential living needs, in the form of vouchers. The value of vouchers provided will be decided on a case-by-case basis. The maximum weekly levels of voucher support for asylum seekers under the new arrangements are shown in the table.

  £

  Maximum amount of weekly voucher support including £10 cash voucher

  Single person aged 25 or over

  36.54

  Single person aged at least 18 but under 25

  28.95

  Lone parent aged 18 or over

  36.54

  Qualifying couple

  57.37

  Person aged under 16

  26.60

  Person aged at least 16 but under 18 (except a member of a qualifying couple)

  31.75

  Costs associated with accommodation under the new support arrangements being phased in from 3 April 2000 are commercially confidential.

  Immigration Control (Illegal Workers)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of persons subject to immigration control who have been employed in contravention of section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in each of the last three years; how many prosecutions have been brought; what is his policy in respect of such prosecutions; and if he will make a statement. [115974]

  Mrs. Roche
  No reliable estimate can be made of the number of persons subject to immigration control who have been employed in contravention of section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Prosecution of suspected offenders is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. One prosecution has been brought thus far, in 1999, when a company was found guilty on nine counts, and fined £500 on each count and ordered to pay costs. In addition, more than 40 people have been served with a
  675W
  warning of their liability to prosecution under this part of the Act. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. O'Brien) announced in the House last year, it is no longer our policy to issue a warning of liability to prosecution before proceeding to prosecution in appropriate cases.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of offenders released on the Home Detention Curfew scheme have re-offended after completing the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [115967]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information about offences committed by offenders who have completed a period on the Home Detention Curfew scheme is not held centrally. However, an evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew scheme is being carried out by the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office. It will include an analysis, based upon a sampling exercise, of reconviction of curfewees both during and after the curfew period. Results will be published later this year.

  Press Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer of 17 March 2000,Official Report, columns 380–81W, on the Press Office, for what reason disproportionate costs would be involved in calculating the average number of persons employed in the Home Office Press Office in 1998–99 and 1999–2000; what was the cost of the calculation of the statistics for 1996–97 and 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [115990]

  Mr. Straw
  Press Office staff levels have varied considerably over the last four years, have been augmented by seconded staff, by long and short-term attachments and there have been large numbers of vacancies at different times. Detailed staff number profiles for the periods in question are not held within the Communication Directorate. Central pay records would have to be searched month by month for the periods in question and these would not include all the attachments and secondments, many of which were not funded within the Directorate. The cost would, therefore, be disproportionate. No-one currently employed in the Communication Directorate was involved in providing the statistics for the Public Administration Committee and there is no record of the cost of obtaining the data.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2000,Official Report, column 381W, on special advisers, if a record is kept of the contact with the Press that Mr. Ed Owen has in connection with his role to support Ministers in the presentational aspects of policy. [115989]

  Mr. Straw
  No.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2000,Official Report, column 376W, on the Global
  676W
  Cultural Diversity Congress, what level of Government funding he understood would be discussed at the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February; whether that actual level was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [115991]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We understood that potential costs to public funds in the region of £1 million might be discussed and were very concerned by this. The details of what was actually discussed on 7 February is a matter for the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2000,Official Report, column 376W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, what Ministerial policy issues related to the production of the accountants' report into the financial affairs of Global Cultural Congress 2000 Ltd. [115993]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The policy issues related to the appropriateness of injecting public funding into the Global Cultural Diversity Congress.

  The report for consultants was an oral report to officials accompanied by a bullet point presentation originally on slides which was relayed to Ministers.

  As the hon. Member has requested in a letter, I hope to be able to disclose shortly the substance of the report in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, but I am awaiting advice on how that can be done.

  I will place a copy in the Library, when available.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2000,Official Report, column 376W, on the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, from what Government funds he understood that the potential sources of additional funding for the Global Cultural Diversity Congress to be discussed at the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February were to be sourced; who gave authorisation for the Government funding to be discussed at the Commission's meeting; when he was informed that additional funding from Government funds would be discussed at the meeting; and if he will make a statement. [115992]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Ministers were briefed on a request for Home Office funding of the Global Cultural Diversity Congress on 4 February but did not agree to give any then or later.

  The detail of discussion at Commission meetings is a matter for the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Prisoner Accommodation
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to accommodate prisoners closer to their homes. [115623]

  Mr. Boateng
  In its management of the prison population, the Prison Service aims to hold prisoners in establishments which provide the degree of security that they require, are suitable to their gender, age and legal status and which are near to their homes, or for unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners near to the courts dealing with their cases.
  677W
  However, high population levels throughout the prisons and remand estate can lead to prisoners being transferred from their home area to establishments with a greater number of vacancies.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are held in prison establishments(a) over 25 miles, (b) over 50 miles and (c) over 100 miles from their homes. [115625]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service does not have home address records for every prisoner in its custody. The centrally available information is based on the distance that prisoners are held from their committal court town and is set out in the table in the nearest format to that requested. This information is based on data collected on 30 November 1999. There are in the region of 24,000 prisoners held under 25 miles from their committal court town.

  Distance from home area

  Number of prisoners 1

  Between 25 and 50 miles

  16,000

  Between 50 and 100 miles

  14,000

  Over 100 miles

  11,000

  Total over 25 miles

  41,000

  1 Rounded to nearest thousand

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations in "Prison Disturbances 1990: report of an Inquiry by the right hon. Lord Justice Woolf and His Honour Sir Stephen Tumim", that(a) no establishment should hold more prisoners than is provided for in its certified normal accommodation, and (b) Parliament be informed if there is a material departure from this rule. [115616]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no plans to introduce a new prison rule to limit the maximum number of prisoners an establishment can hold to the level of its certified normal accommodation, also known as uncrowded capacity.

  This is because there is no immediate prospect that overcrowding will be ended. However, by a combination of providing additional accommodation and the introduction of new legislation (for example Home Detention Curfew), the Government are ensuring that overcrowding is contained within the maximum safe operational capacity of establishments.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time per week spent out of cell by prisoners in the last two years for which figures are available in(a) each local prison and (b) each young offender institution. [115615]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average time spent out of cell for local prisons and young offender institutions for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 are given in the table.678W

  Time out of cell 1997–1999

  Function name/Prison name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Male closed YOI

  Aylesbury

  Weekdays

  9.4

  8.5

  Weekends

  5.6

  5.5

  Castington

  Weekdays

  9.9

  9.9

  Weekends

  6.8

  6.8

  Deerbolt

  Weekdays

  10.4

  10.2

  Weekends

  7.2

  4.3

  Dover

  Weekdays

  9.3

  9.3

  Weekends

  5.0

  5.0

  Feltham

  Weekdays

  8.0

  8.0

  Weekends

  6.0

  6.0

  Glen Parva

  Weekdays

  9.2

  9.3

  Weekends

  5.8

  5.8

  Guys Marsh

  Weekdays

  13.3

  13.0

  Weekends

  10.3

  10.2

  Huntercombe

  Weekdays

  11.0

  10.7

  Weekends

  6.5

  6.7

  Onley

  Weekdays

  11.5

  11.5

  Weekends

  9.7

  9.7

  Portland

  Weekdays

  10.7

  8.7

  Weekends

  6.0

  4.4

  Reading

  Weekdays

  9.1

  8.5

  Weekends

  7.9

  7.2

  Stoke Heath

  Weekdays

  11.2

  10.3

  Weekends

  8.0

  7.2

  Swinfen Hall

  Weekdays

  8.6

  8.8

  Weekends

  6.5

  6.9

  Wetherby

  Weekdays

  10.8

  10.8

  Weekends

  10.1

  10.0

  Male Juvenile

  Werrington

  Weekdays

  13.5

  13.0

  Weekends

  13.0

  12.5

  Male open YOI

  Hatfield

  Weekdays

  13.3

  13.3

  Weekends

  13.3

  13.3

  Thorn Cross

  Weekdays

  12.5

  12.5

  Weekends

  12.5

  12.5

  Male remand centre

  Brinsford

  Weekdays

  10.2

  10.3

  Weekends

  9.3

  9.3

  Hindley

  Weekdays

  8.8

  9.1

  Weekends

  7.8

  5.0

  Lancaster Farms

  Weekdays

  9.9

  8.1

  Weekends

  8.1

  5.6

  Northallerton

  Weekdays

  10.2

  9.9

  Weekends

  8.8

  9.5

  Male local

  Altcourse

  Weekdays

  —

  13.0

  Weekends

  —

  13.0

  Bedford

  Weekdays

  10.8

  9.3

  Weekends

  10.8

  7.5

  Belmarsh

  Weekdays

  9.0

  6.6

  Weekends

  8.0

  4.8

  Birmingham

  Weekdays

  5.5

  6.0

  Weekends

  4.1

  4.5

  Blakenhurst

  Weekdays

  10.7

  10.8

  Weekends

  9.3

  9.6

  Bristol

  Weekdays

  10.3

  10.4

  Weekends

  8.8

  8.8

  Brixton

  Weekdays

  10.0

  11.0

  Weekends

  9.7

  8.7

  Bullingdon

  Weekdays

  10.1

  10.2

  Weekends

  8.2

  8.2

  Canterbury

  Weekdays

  10.8

  10.8

  Weekends

  7.0

  7.0

  Cardiff

  Weekdays

  11.9

  10.4

  Weekends

  9.0

  7.3

  Chelmsford

  Weekdays

  9.2

  7.8

  Weekends

  8.0

  7.8

  Doncaster

  Weekdays

  11.1

  10.3

  Weekends

  11.8

  10.3

  Dorchester

  Weekdays

  8.4

  8.1

  Weekends

  6.7

  7.0

  679W

  Time out of cell 1997–1999

  Function name/Prison name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Durham

  Weekdays

  8.3

  8.3

  Weekends

  6.5

  6.2

  Elmley

  Weekdays

  10.0

  8.8

  Weekends

  8.0

  8.0

  Exeter

  Weekdays

  9.8

  6.3

  Weekends

  8.2

  5.3

  Gloucester

  Weekdays

  9.5

  9.5

  Weekends

  7.5

  7.5

  Haslar

  Weekdays

  12.0

  12.0

  Weekends

  11.0

  11.0

  Highdown

  Weekdays

  10.3

  9.0

  Weekends

  10.3

  6.0

  Holme House

  Weekdays

  9.5

  9.5

  Weekends

  9.5

  9.5

  Hull

  Weekdays

  10.5

  10.5

  Weekends

  8.1

  8.3

  Leeds

  Weekdays

  8.2

  8.5

  Weekends

  6.4

  7.5

  Leicester

  Weekdays

  11.5

  11.3

  Weekends

  10.5

  10.1

  Lewes

  Weekdays

  9.4

  9.3

  Weekends

  7.3

  6.3

  Lincoln

  Weekdays

  10.3

  10.4

  Weekends

  9.5

  9.3

  Liverpool

  Weekdays

  6.9

  6.6

  Weekends

  4.1

  4.1

  Manchester

  Weekdays

  10.3

  10.0

  Weekends

  8.4

  8.3

  Norwich

  Weekdays

  9.3

  8.8

  Weekends

  9.3

  8.8

  Nottingham

  Weekdays

  9.8

  9.8

  Weekends

  9.5

  9.5

  Pare

  Weekdays

  1.2

  11.2

  Weekends

  1.1

  10.4

  Pentonville

  Weekdays

  9.0

  9.0

  Weekends

  7.0

  7.0

  Preston

  Weekdays

  8.2

  8.0

  Weekends

  7.3

  7.0

  Rochester

  Weekdays

  11.7

  10.5

  Weekends

  10.9

  11.4

  Shrewsbury

  Weekdays

  13.4

  11.1

  Weekends

  14.3

  11.1

  Swansea

  Weekdays

  7.3

  7.3

  Weekends

  6.8

  6.8

  Wandsworth

  Weekdays

  8.2

  8.0

  Weekends

  6.6

  7.0

  Winchester

  Weekdays

  8.4

  7.9

  Weekends

  7.3

  6.7

  Wolds

  Weekdays

  12.0

  11.7

  Weekends

  12.0

  11.9

  Woodhill

  Weekdays

  10.9

  10.2

  Weekends

  11.1

  10.2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Weekdays

  8.7

  7.8

  Weekends

  7.1

  4.2

  Female local

  Brockhill

  Weekdays

  10.7

  10.0

  Weekends

  10.5

  10.0

  Eastwood Park

  Weekdays

  10.5

  11.6

  Weekends

  10.3

  10.3

  Holloway

  Weekdays

  10.5

  10.5

  Weekends

  10.0

  10.0

  Low Newton

  Weekdays

  9.5

  8.6

  Weekends

  8.2

  8.0

  New Hall

  Weekdays

  11.6

  10.5

  Weekends

  10.6

  10.3

  Prision Officers
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to enhance the role of prison officers since the publication 680W
  of "Prison Disturbances 1990: report of an Inquiry by the right hon. Lord Justice Woolf and His Honour Sir Stephen Tumim". [115617]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over the past 10 years, prison officers have become involved in a wider range of tasks, relating in particular to the rehabilitation of prisoners.

  The personal officer scheme has sought to develop the relationship between staff and prisoners. The personal officer discusses and agrees a sentence plan with the prisoner; and also contributes to the risk assessment processes associated with release on temporary licence and with home detention curfew.

  Prison officers play a key role in identifying those at risk of suicide or self-harm; and in supporting them through closer supervision and multi-disciplinary progress reviews. They act as tutors to the Prison Service's accredited offending behaviour programmes, where their training is integral to the accreditation process. Within the Service's drug strategy, they contribute to the multi-disciplinary counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare (CARAT) teams and to the voluntary testing units, which support prisoners who wish to live in a drug-free environment.

  The development of the prison officer's role has been supported by a range of training programmes, including in sentence management, substance awareness, suicide awareness, race relations and combating bullying. The Prison Service has developed a National Vocational Qualification in custodial care, which provides a systematic map of the range of skills and knowledge an officer needs. The enhanced role of officer is reflected in rigorous job simulation selection procedures, now used to select and promote all officers.

  Prisoners (Voting Rights)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place to enable(a) eligible remand prisoners and (b) people imprisoned for (i) contempt of court and (ii) failing to pay a fine to exercise their right to vote in the elections for a London mayor. [115624]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prison Service Instruction which will explain how eligible prisoners can exercise their right to vote in the elections for a London mayor will shortly be sent to prison establishments.

  Eurojust
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which officials would be seconded to Eurojust under the terms of the proposals agreed at Tampere; [115553]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the advantages and disadvantages of extending the powers of the Anti-drugs Co-ordinator to include participation in Eurojust; and if he will make a statement; [115556]

  (3) what is his policy regarding the crimes to be covered by Eurojust; and what is the Commission's Prison Officers policy; [115709]

  (4) if he will list those elements of the Eurojust proposal which are components of Corpus Juris; and what is his policy on this matter. [115555]
  681W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I welcome the decision taken at the Tampere Special European Council to set up Eurojust, as a means of improving judicial co-operation with the European Union. There is very little connection or similarity between Eurojust and the proposals in the "Corpus Juris" document: the Government's view, in line with the Tampere conclusions, is that the role of Eurojust will be to facilitate and support investigations and prosecutions by national authorities, not to act as a European Prosecutor in its own right. The European Council mandated the Justice and Home Affairs Council to adopt the necessary legal instrument establishing Eurojust by the end of 2001.

  In line with the conclusions of the Tampere European Council, Eurojust is to be composed of
  "national prosecutors, magistrates, or police officers of equivalent competence, detached from each member state according to its legal system".

  The Government believe that Eurojust should deal with serious crime, in particular organised crime offences and the offences for which Europol has responsibility. I understand that the Commission also supports this approach.

  I do not believe that it would be necessary or appropriate for the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator to join in Eurojust' s operational work in relation to individual investigations. It would, however, be open to him to make contacts with Eurojust on the same basis as contacts he has made with other international organisations, in pursuing his strategic role.

  Schengen Convention
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer of 6 March 2000,Official Report, column 545W, on bogus drug deals, if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the document referred to in Community Document 10846/99, page 8, on the Schengen Manual on Bogus Drugs Deals. [115575]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that the Manual on bogus drugs deals referred to in the 1998 Annual Report on the implementation of the Schengen Convention (10846/1/99 REV 1 CATS 23 ASIM 36 COMIX 223) is a confidential document which has been made available only to states which currently participate in the provisions of the Schengen Convention. The United Kingdom has yet to participate in any of the provisions of the Convention. In the circumstances, it will not be possible to lodge the Manual in the Library.

  Freedom, Security and Justice
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on the Scoreboard on the Creation of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union. [115576]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government consider the "scoreboard", requested at the Tampere European Council, to be of central importance as a means to monitor progress, prioritise the work and provide greater transparency in the implementation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union.

  Prostitutes' Cards
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which organisations he has received submissions in response to the consultation paper, "New Measures to Control Prostitutes' Cards". [115589]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received 60 responses to our consultation paper, "New Measures to Control Prostitutes Cards in Phone Boxes". Those who submitted comments include:

  the three police staff associations—the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation;

  the regulator Oftel;

  the telephone box operators—British Telecom, IPM and New World Payphones;

  other licensed operators—One2One, Vodafone, British Telecom Cellnet, and Orange;

  the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government;

  local authorities—Westminster City Council, the London Borough of Camden, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Brighton and Hove Council, North Lincolnshire Council and the Corporation of London;

  the London Tourist Board;

  the London Chamber of Commerce;

  the Justices' Clerks' Society;

  advertisers—the Advertising Association, Outdoor Advertising Association, Phonesites, and the Committee of Advertising Practice;

  groups representing sex workers and Europap, the Sexual Freedom Coalition, and the Praed Street Project;

  the organisation CARE;

  residents associations representing areas badly affected by the presence of cards, a number of local businesses and concerned members of the public.

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the financial impact of measures to control prostitutes' cards on(a) the police, (b) local authorities and (c) telecommunications operators in the last 12 months. [115588]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office consultation paper 'New Measures to Control Prostitutes' Cards in Phone Boxes' invited respondents to submit information about the existing and potential costs caused by the nuisance of prostitutes' cards.

  A number of organisations including some local authorities and telephone operators responded with figures. Their responses referred to the costs incurred in cleaning the boxes and removing cards and the cost of court action against carders. They also included lost advertising revenue, although this was not calculated separately. The total figure amounted to around £750,000, but not all those likely to incur costs at present responded to the question in the consultation paper.

  Police (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were police numbers in the London Borough of Wandsworth(a) on 1 March, and (b) on

  683W
  1 March in each of the previous four years; and if he will make a statement. [115550]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the number of police officers in the London Borough of Wandsworth was 570 on 1 March 2000; 576 on 1 March 1999; 605 on 1 March 1998; 630 on 1 March 1997; and 662 on 1 March 1996.

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Specific grant

  846,761,947

  900,344,546

  931,430,758

  949,070,118

  Capital grant

  27,749,000

  24,774,000

  21,892,000

  21,892,000

  Loan charge grant

  1,778,546

  6,049,591

  5,916,813

  4,783,118

  Revenue support grant

  436,413,559

  457,598,818

  461,893,809

  461,556,352

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female category A prisoners were held in prisons in England and Wales on 1 March. [115549]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available provisional information is for 29 February. On that date there were 886 male and three female category A prisoners in prisons in England and Wales.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were killed in experiments at Wickham Research Laboratories, Wickham, Hampshire, in each of the last five years. [115749]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents me from disclosing detailed information of this nature about an individual establishment licensed under the Act.

  Service Personnel (Absence)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has the responsibility when a member of the armed forces goes absent without leave, for ensuring that information relating to the absentee is placed on the Police National Computer. [115559]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is placed on the Police National Computer by the National Identification Service at New Scotland Yard once they have been notified by the Royal Military Police that a member of the armed forces has gone absent without leave.

  Assault
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time from arrest to referral to the Crown Prosecution Service in the case of accusations of assault, in each of the last three years. [115598]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate an inquiry into

  Metropolitan Police Grants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial grants have been allocated to the Metropolitan police in each of the last four years. [115551]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Grants to the Metropolitan police in the last four years are given in the table:

  the process by which prisoners are released from prison, with specific reference to enabling them to avoid former criminal inmates. [115622]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. All adult prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or more are released on licence and required to comply with whatever conditions may be contained in the licence. Young offenders (those under 21) are mostly subject to licence, if sentenced to a month or more. A standard licence condition is to be of good behaviour and not to do anything to jeopardise the aims of supervision. A licensee who mixes with criminal elements may be regarded as breaching this condition and recalled to custody. It is the responsibility of the probation service to supervise prisoners released on licence to ensure that the public is protected, further offences are not committed, and that the offender is successfully rehabilitated.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making to ensure that vulnerable female prisoners on release from prison are not met and coerced by former associates. [115609]

  Mr. Boateng
  If, prior to release, a prisoner of either sex, or prison staff, has or have information to suggest that the prisoner concerned is at risk of being met and coerced by former associates outside prison, this would be a matter for the local police. The prison's police liaison officer would be responsible for passing on the information. In the case of a prisoner who is released on licence, the supervising probation officer would be able to provide advice, support and assistance. The supervising officer may also need to liaise with the police if it is feared that offences may be committed as a result of such associations.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is putting in place to ensure that prisoners on release are given appropriate assistance with transport to their homes. [115612]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under Standing Order 11 (Discharge of Prisoners), all discharged prisoners are entitled to receive a travel warrant, or payment of fares where a warrant is inappropriate, to their home or destination within the United Kingdom, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland. The issue of a travel warrant, or payment of fares, is in addition to the discharge grant which is paid to the majority of released prisoners, to help them meet their immediate needs on release.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that perpetrators of domestic violence are successfully prosecuted and punished. [115611]

  Mr. Boateng
  Earlier this month, we launched new Multi-Agency Guidance for Addressing Domestic Violence. This sets out considerations to be borne in mind by agencies across the criminal justice system, and in local authorities and the health service, to ensure that domestic violence is tackled effectively and that appropriate services are provided to its survivors. The guidance also gives good practice examples and advice on partnership working. We shall be supplementing it shortly by specific guidance to the police.

  The violence against women initiative within the Crime Reduction Programme invites bids for the funding of projects to address domestic violence, and these will be monitored and evaluated to see what is effective and cost-effective.

  Information on all the Government's initiatives to tackle violence is available via our website: http://www.gov.uk/domesticviolence/index/htm.

  Prisoners (Visits)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to enable women prisoners to receive visits from relatives who live long distances from their prison. [115610]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service places great importance on prisoners maintaining close ties with their families as part of their rehabilitation. Population pressures have resulted in some prisoners being allocated a long distance away from their families, and this has been a particular problem for women prisoners because of the relatively small amount of accommodation for them. The allocation of women prisoners may also be restricted by the need for them to attend specific offender behaviour programmes or if they have been allocated to a mother and baby unit. This is being addressed by the continuing programme to increase the capacity of the female estate, mainly by re-roling male facilities, resulting in a greater spread of female accommodation across the country.

  For relatives who live some distance from a particular prison, the Assisted Prison Visits Unit offers financial assistance for those who meet the relevant criteria. The Prison Service is also working to improve the quality of visits, with particular emphasis on ensuring that imprisoned parents have productive visits with their children. An increasing number of establishments are providing creches and play areas, as well as making provision for extended family visits to take place away from the normal visits area.

  Police, Probation and Prison Services
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to involve the Office for National Statistics in the planning, production 686W
  and presentation of statistical information relating to the performance of the police, probation and prison services. [115361]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is represented on a committee established by my Department's Research, Development and Statistics Directorate which is co-ordinating a programme of reviews of the business requirements, scope and production of all regular Home Office Statistical series, including those relating to the performance of police, prison and probation services.

  In addition, the ONS is involved in specific discussions on ethnic monitoring statistics for police, prison and probation services and has provided census and mid-year population estimates for a study comparing crime and related figures in two types of areas, namely Basic Command Units within police forces and the areas in which Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships operate.

  For the future, the planning, production and presentation of those statistics that come within the scope of National Statistics will be subject to the arrangements described in "Building Trust in Statistics". It is envisaged that this will include the setting up of a new inter-departmental Crime and Justice working group that also involves representation from the ONS.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Unqualified Claims Advisers
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry into the activities of unqualified claims advisers who contract on a no-win, no-fee basis to pursue claims for compensation for personal injury in return for a percentage of any sum recovered; if he will publish the report as soon as he receives it; and if he will make a statement. [115936]

  Mr. Lock
  The Committee established by the Lord Chancellor to investigate the activities of non-legally qualified claims assessors and employment advisers who act for reward reported to the Lord Chancellor at the end of February. The report will be published shortly.

  Asylum (Judicial Reviews)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what, during the last five years for which figures are available, what was the(a) longest and (b) average time an ultimately (i) unsuccessful and (ii) successful application for judicial review of an asylum decision was before the courts. [115976]

  Jane Kennedy
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for judicial review of asylum decisions were made in each of the last five years for which figures are available; how many were granted a substantive hearing; how many
  687W
  applications were granted (a) initially and (b) on appeal; what was the total cost to public funds of such applications and appeals in each year; on how many occasions Queen's Counsel were employed by (i) him and (ii) the applicant; and if he will make a statement. [115971]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information on the numbers of applications received in 1999 and 1998 is set out in the table. The remaining information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1998

  1999

  Receipts

  1,874

  2,170

  Leave granted on initial application

  308

  436

  Leave granted on oral hearing

  36

  42

  Applications allowed (following substantive hearing)

  173

  175

  Immigration Appeals Adjudicators
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what qualifications are required for appointment as an Immigration Appeals adjudicator; and if he will make a statement. [115986]

  Mr. Lock
  Schedule 3 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 states that a person is qualified for appointment as an adjudicator only if:

  (a) he has a seven year general qualification, within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

  (b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least seven years' standing;

  (c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least seven years' standing; or

  (d) he has such legal and other experience as appears to the Lord Chancellor to make him suited for appointment as an adjudicator.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Southall Rail Accident Inquiry Report
Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodasked Her Majesty's Government:
What they consider to be the implications for public policy of the Uff report into the 1997 rail accident at Southall.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, both Professor Uff's report and the other recent reports on Railtrack's safety responsibilities indicate the need for a stronger railway safety regulatory regime and highlight the need for greater co-operation and action from the industry. The Government are taking action on this. The Health and Safety Commission is now establishing wit h all the relevant parties an action plan for taking forward Professor Uff's recommendations.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and I look forward to hearing the results of progress towards a new approach to safety which the noble Lord outlined in his response. However, does he agree that one of the implications of the Uff report is that the technical investigation into the causes of an accident should take place immediately after the accident and before a criminal investigation, if any, is undertaken? Does he also agree that people who give evidence to the technical inquiry should be able to do so while being protected from the criminal results of that evidence because it is most important to know how the accident was caused and how to bring forward improvements?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the question of post-accident procedures have been considered thoroughly in the aftermath of Southall. Indeed, they were in place by the time the Ladbroke Grove accident occurred, and the British Transport Police, emergency services, HSE and the industry parties involved have put the various protocols in place. However they will, of course, be kept under constant review, particularly now that Lord Cullen's inquiry, which first sat in December last year, is under way. I assure your Lordships that there will be as little delay as possible to the Cullen inquiry. The Attorney-General has authorised Lord Cullen to issue an indemnity from prosecution to those who give evidence to the inquiry, and that has enabled Lord Cullen to start the inquiry immediately. I know that the Lord Chancellor's Department is in the lead in a
398
review of the larger question of the relationship between inquiries and criminal prosecutions. However, that issue goes wider than transport.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend about progress on the installation of train protection and warning systems. Can he confirm that the Government have accepted the recommendations of Sir David Davies that TPWS should be installed across the network as soon as possible and that ATP (advanced train protection) should be installed on high-speed lines as they are upgraded?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I should point out that before the Paddington crash occurred, regulations were laid for the introduction of the train protection and warning system (TPWS) by the end of 2003. Indeed, the industry has agreed to implement the system ahead of that deadline. We were very grateful to Sir David Davies for his report because it showed that the TPWS system, which is effective at speeds of up to approximately 75 miles per hour, can be extended in a manner that will allow it to control trains travelling at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour. He believes that by introducing TPWS+, we can obtain the safety benefits in a much shorter time than would be the case with the introduction of automatic train protection.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether there is any sign of a reduction in the number of incidents of signals passed at danger since the terrible Ladbroke Grove accident?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I know that the matter of signals passed at danger, which have taken on the fairly sombre acronym of "SPADs", been of concern to your Lordships. I am pleased to say that the number of SPADs is one-third lower than it was 10 years ago. Since the action which was initiated after the Ladbroke Grove accident, monthly reports are now produced on the total of SPADs. They have fallen by approximately 25 per cent in recent months: in fact, they are 25 per cent lower than in the same period a year ago. Again, I should point out that the action on SPADs (22 actions) was initiated by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate before the crash occurred at Paddington.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Great Western Trains is now using the automatic train protection system and that it has adequate procedures in place for occasions when neither the ATP nor the automatic warning system are operable?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, yes, indeed. The train operating companies have agreed that they will take those matters very seriously. Great Western Trains has given assurances that it will run only trains which have automatic train protection in place. We are also working on procedures to ensure that the automatic warning system—that is, the other system involved—is operational before any trains are run.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for referring to those signals which have been passed at danger on repeated occasions. For example, I am aware of the signal at Harrow & Wealdstone, which was also the site of the worst rail disaster of the last century. Can we be told whether specific steps are being taken with regard to signals which are passed repeatedly and whether measures have been taken which my noble friend feels are sufficient to ensure the safety of passengers who go through those signals?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we have introduced a regime of monthly reporting on SPADs. There are various degrees of severity, depending on the overrun of the trains involved at any particular signal. Those are isolated and graded. More serious SPADs are acted upon. Information is also given as to whether the driver involved has previously had any problems in relation to passing signals at danger and, indeed, the number of times that a signal has been passed is flagged up. Those procedures are now much more rigorous than they were in the past.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the course of studying the Uff report, will the Government undertake to consider whether it creates any case for reviewing their proposals for public-private partnership on the London Underground?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there is hardly any comparability in relation to safety on the London Underground, particularly in regard to SPADs. They are very different types of regime. Having said that, your Lordships will find in the Library the records relating to London Underground and its very fine safety record in recent years.
The implication of that question appears to be that somehow the PPP proposed for the London Underground would make its operation less safe. I assure your Lordships that it is designed to increase the safety of that system by ensuring that we attract the resources, investment and maintenance in the front-loading of the 15-year period so that it will be safer than it is at present. I assure the House that it is a very safe system at the moment.

Pig Farming Industry
3.14 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to save the British pig farming industry.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the pig industry has faced extremely difficult conditions over the past two years. There has been some welcome recent strengthening of the pig price, reflecting in part a range of measures, particularly related to marketing
400
and labelling, taken by the Government and the Meat and Livestock Commission. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be meeting leaders of the farming and food industry next week to take forward the Government's strategy for British agriculture as a whole.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Although animal welfare is important, does she agree that a combination of factors is making the pig farming industry uneconomic, one of those factors being regulations which are not being observed by European competitors? That is a situation explained in a very well-informed article in the press on 6th March by the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. The article was about pigs, not theology. It was a down-to-earth article which I thoroughly commend. Will the Government consider very seriously the future of those unfortunate farmers at the meeting at No. 10 next week?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to refer to a combination of factors. The increased welfare standards in this country is one such factor. The effects of the BSE crisis have gone wider than the cattle industry and have affected the pig industry too. I saw the article to which the noble Lord referred. I must say that I find in your Lordships' House that the Members on the Bishops' Bench are often extremely well informed on agricultural matters.
In terms of welfare standards, the answer is not to try to diminish our own welfare standards—for example, the ban on sow stalls—but to make sure that we continue to press for the extension of those standards to the rest of the European Union and to include recognition of welfare standards in WTO deliberations.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind words about this Bench. I am sure that my colleagues and I are grateful for her comments.
Does the Minister believe that the pig industry is facing extinction—that the collapse will go on—or is it the view of MAFF that there is a market for British pig products which will recover when supply and demand come into balance? In other words, we are seeing a number of pig producers going out of business but, so far, not enough to have taken that amount of production out of the market to enable the price to rise to a viable level for those who survive. However, is it MAFF's view that there is a long-term future for British pig farmers and that it is mainly a question of supply and demand?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said earlier, I believe that it is a combination of factors. The average weekly price of pigmeat currently stands at 92.05p per kilogramme. That is up from 75p per kilogramme at the end of January. That represents what is just about the break-even point for most producers.

401
The pig industry has always been cyclical. We are seeing some restructuring at the moment. We believe that there is a long-term market for high quality produce, both in this country and abroad. We are a net exporter of pork. I think also that there is a market premium for products which are produced to very high standards both in terms of welfare and feed. For that reason, we have concentrated on helping British producers to market the high quality of their produce.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, reverting to the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell about regulations loosely enforced elsewhere but pressed home with rigour here, will the Minister do her best to persuade officials in her department to learn a little more about what goes on in Europe and to stop acting as though they were themselves the appointed pallbearers for this industry?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I have said previously to the noble Lord, I have no intention of gold-plating any provisions or of placing extra, unnecessary burdens on British producers. Equally, we all recognise that in the aftermath of BSE, the provisions are in the interests of rebuilding the industry in this country. We have been successful domestically. We need to become so in export terms. That brings with it the cost of high hygiene and public health standards.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while the fertility of the pig is one of the great dangers—it multiplies quickly—in this case the strength of the pound has as much to do with the troubles of the industry, just as is the case with many other industries? Will she do something about that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not know whether I prefer to answer on pig fertility or on the strength of the pound. In many ways, the strength of the pound against the euro is an extremely significant factor in that part of the agriculture industry, as it is elsewhere. The answer does not lie in an artificial devaluation of a currency which represents a strong economy. That would be difficult to achieve and would produce more negative effects than success. We return to the support which we can give to the industry, which has been successful in creating markets for a high premium product.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Irish, French and Belgian Governments have all applied for financial help from the European Commission and have obtained it, yet this Government have not? Furthermore, following the question asked by my noble friend, why did the Government decide to block Stephen O'Brien's Private Member's Bill which would have helped people in choosing British products? The Government chose to talk out the measure, thus failing to provide additional aid to British pig farmers.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I sometimes believe that the Benches opposite have a case of collective
402
amnesia about the rules of membership of the European Union. The Irish Government have applied for aid in the same way as we applied for aid in crisis in response to the fire that occurred in the pig industry. The kinds of aid which can be given—the Belgian input is an interesting one—relate to restructuring the industry. That is not what is being asked for at present. Market support is not available. Commissioner Fischler has made that clear. He made it extremely clear to the agriculture committee which went over to see him in Brussels about the issue.
Equally, we cannot impose the provisions of Stephen O'Brien's Bill. It is no good pretending that because one wants the world to be different, it is different. We have taken action to ensure that the rules in this country prevent the misleading labelling of products as "British" which are not British.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, we have reached 16 minutes. We should move on.

Female Circumcision
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Baberghasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made towards putting an end to female circumcision in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, education is central to eradicating the brutal practice of female genital mutilation, or FGM. My department continues to fund relevant voluntary organisations. In addition, the Government will ensure that the findings of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health hearings on FGM are fed into the development of our sexual health strategy.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which was not perhaps as encouraging as I had hoped. To sustain a more positive note, is he aware of the reversal procedures—mostly highly successful—presently being carried out at the African clinic of the Central Middlesex Hospital? Is he further aware that any woman who has been subjected to female genital mutilation may attend the clinic whenever she chooses without referral from a GP?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I want to reassure my noble friend that we take the matter extremely seriously. We shall reflect carefully on the findings of the all-party parliamentary group and we shall then wish to consider how we may take forward

403
work in that area. I pay tribute also to the work of the Central Middlesex Hospital NHS trust and to hospitals which provide similar services: Guy's, Northwick Park and those in Liverpool and Manchester.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I took the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill through your Lordships' House? It is of great concern that this fiendish practice may be taking place in some private hospitals up and down the country. Is it not therefore extremely important that the Care Standards Bill covers private hospitals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work. It is a fact that, although the Act was passed in 1985, there have been no prosecutions. I believe that that is due to the small number of complaints which have been made. The police have found it difficult to obtain evidence to support a conviction. With regard to regulation of private healthcare, I believe that a rigorous approach must be adopted. As the noble Baroness says, the Care Standards Bill provides a mechanism by which we can do so.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as the Minister says, the practice has been illegal since 1985. Does he therefore agree that, since that date, anyone who has had the operation carried out in this country has undergone an illegal operation? In the case of minors in particular, no parent or adult would have had the right to give permission for an illegal operation. Therefore, at any stage subsequently a person who had had such an operation would surely be entitled to bring a case for damages against whoever had conducted the mutilation. Have there been any such cases of damages and, if not, would it not be a good idea, when cases are discovered—as they are inevitably when women present for other treatments—for it to be pointed out to the women concerned that such rights exist? A few such cases would certainly do something to remedy the cause.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not aware of any cases brought to court in the way in which the noble Baroness suggests. There is no doubt that such an operation is an illegal act. It is a horrific act and one which we must pursue with vigour but, as I have already said, there are very real practical difficulties in obtaining evidence to enable the police to pursue such cases. Of course, in the context to which the noble Baroness refers, we are probably talking about the parents of the young woman concerned. That indicates the difficulties that we have in that area.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am pleased to hear the Minister say that notice would be taken of the findings of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. When the new government guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, is to be issued, what
404
will be its recommendations in respect of giving training and advice on the means to prevent, reduce and ultimately eliminate the practice?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Working Together to Safeguard Children was issued jointly in December 1999. It sets out how all agencies and professionals should work together to promote children's welfare and to protect them from abuse and neglect. Within that context, it is entirely appropriate for local authorities to review their own policies in relation to FGM.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, when in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, the Minister said that money from the Government was being paid to various groups, he did not say what those groups did. Do they merely try to treat women in distress after the operation or do they try to suggest that the operation is illegal and should not take place?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the groups to which we give funding do excellent work in that area. Much of their work involves education and literature, bringing home to those who may be involved in the practice both its dangers and its illegality.

Rover Car Company
3.29 p.m.
Lord Geddesasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to secure an alternative buyer for the Rover car company and whether they support the proposed sale of Land Rover to Ford.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no intention of undermining the Alchemy offer. However, we are naturally interested in the best possible outcome for Longbridge and its employees. I am unable to comment on the proposed sale of Land Rover as that will be subject to consideration by the relevant competition authorities.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. On 16th December 1999, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in the context of the take-over by Vodafone of Mannesmann, stated:
"the two companies themselves have said publicly that they would wish the market, rather than governments, to decide on the merits of the case".— [Official Report, 16/12/99; WA63.]
Did Her Majesty's Government concur with that philosophy and do they still concur with it in the BMW/Rover/Alchemy context? Was it not an irresponsible "spun" smokescreen for Her Majesty's Government to raise the hopes of those at Rover by implying that the Government could, would or should intervene in what is entirely a commercial matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have not indicated that they could, would or should intervene in the issue of BMW and Rover at Longbridge. The Government have never said that. Naturally, the Government were disappointed at the speed and lack of notice with which BMW came to its decision. However, the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, has been with Professor Milberg in Germany this morning. He has been pleased with the response of BMW to the urgings of the Government that BMW should seek to minimise the job losses and should cooperate with the task force that has been set up in the West Midlands to deal with potential problems.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, there is probably time for both my noble friends to ask their questions. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Stoddart will allow my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis to ask his first.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of St ate for Trade and Industry, who at present is in Germany, should be allowed to enter into discussions with the German company free of the rigours of any Questions that may be asked in this House? In regard to Land Rover, is it not a vitally successful company in all respects and, therefore, easy to dispose of?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in no way do I want to imply that noble Lords should be restricted in Questions that are put to government Ministers. The visit of the Secretary of State this morning to BMW in Germany has been relatively encouraging. It is proper that I should say that to the House. Land Rover is, of course, a very successful company—and that refers not only to those who actually produce Land Rovers, but also to other companies that produce parts for Land Rover. That company is of great importance to the economy of this country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may express my sympathy to the noble Lord that in addition to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, he is sent here also t o answer this difficult Question while the Minister responsible for such matters who ought to be here is not. Can the Minister tell me how his right honourable friend from the Department of Trade and Industry is getting on with BMW today after he was so insulting to that company last week? How can the department have been surprised, given that weeks ago it was told that the company was making a loss of £2 million a day and that five months' back-production of Fords were lying in an airfield in Oxfordshire?
Noble Lords: Rovers!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that there would be five months' back-production of Fords lying anywhere. This morning the
406
Secretary of State had a constructive meeting with Professor Milberg. I have attempted to tell the House as much as I can of the results of that meeting. It has been agreed that BMW will do all that it can to protect jobs and to minimise job losses. It has also been agreed that BMW will co-operate and work with the task force that we have set up. The task force has been in existence for only five or six days, so it is not yet clear what assistance BMW could give, but from the reports that I have I believe that it was a productive meeting.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the present debacle at Rover shows how unwise and wrong it was for the previous government to support the buying of Rover from British Aerospace by BMW, so reneging on a perfectly good working agreement that it had with the Honda motor company? Does the Minister agree that Honda UK should be praised as it has just announced that it is to extend its factory at Swindon, provide 1,000 jobs for my former constituents, and increase production to 100,000 cars? That company has not whined about the strength of the pound; it is getting on with the job of building cars.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is dangerous, with hindsight, to criticise past decisions. This week in the press I observed that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, regretted that he had not sold BMW to General Motors. He said that he was prevented from doing so by his own Back-Benchers. I should have said "Rover". The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I are now quits! Of course, there are those who say that British Aerospace should have sold Rover to Honda rather than make a bilateral deal with BMW without considering other offers. We are way beyond that and we have to look at the future now.

Business of the House: Whitsun Recess
Lord Carter: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall make a brief statement to announce the Whitsun Recess. Subject, as always, to the progress of Business, the House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 25th May and rise for the Recess at the end of Business on that day. The House will return on Monday 5th June.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for giving us those dates, which the House will greatly welcome. Perhaps he could now give us the dates for the Summer Recess.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I fully expected that question. If my memory serves me rightly, last year the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me for the dates of the Summer Recess in February. Today is 23rd March so we are making some progress! It may surprise your Lordships to know that in the past few days I have not given much thought to the dates of the Summer Recess.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may require the Council to extend the duty set out in that subsection to persons aged over 19 who meet conditions which he may specify.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in tabling this amendment, I shall cover ground that was explored in some detail in Committee and on Report.
This amendment seeks to comprehend the misgivings expressed by ourselves and other noble Lords on all sides of the House at the sharp divide created by the Bill between the treatment of those under the age of 19 and those over it and to take account of the reservations expressed at that time by the Minister.
I stress that this amendment is a permissive amendment. The duty laid on the learning and skills council under Clause 2 of the Bill is to provide "proper facilities" for education and training for those aged under 19. This amendment will give the Secretary of State powers, under certain circumstances, to extend that duty to those aged over 19. As we know from earlier debates, the distinction between proper facilities for those under the age of 19 and the reasonable facilities for those aged over 19—the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill—is that the under-19s have an entitlement to education and training up to the level three qualification, whereas the over-19s have no such entitlement. What is "reasonable" under Clause 3 is a matter of taking account of the council's resources. In other words, such a provision will be made available for the over 19 year-olds where and when the council can afford to make it, whereas the under-19 provision will be provided free of charge. In most cases the over-19s will be expected to find ways of meeting the costs of their tuition.
The purpose of this amendment is not to extend that entitlement in blanket form to the over-19s, but to write into the Act a power for the Secretary of State to extend it to specific categories of people, if he so wishes. It is a mild amendment, but it does allow for a degree of flexibility.
In the debates that we have had on this issue, there have been discussions on the number of different categories of people who might qualify for such an extension. The Minister was particularly sympathetic to those with learning difficulties and disabilities, and to some degree has met the concerns that were expressed in her amendment to Clause 114, which extends the right of assessment up to the age of 25.
From these Benches, our concern has focused not only on those with learning difficulties and disabilities, but also on those who, for one reason or another, miss
408
out on their opportunities to participate in mainstream education and training between the ages of 16 and 19—indeed, often between the ages of 13 and 19—but then seek to make good these omissions at a later stage in life. If we are prepared to pay for expensive sixth form education for 16 to 19 year-olds who stay on at school, it is not unreasonable that we should be prepared to spend a similar amount on those others who do not use their entitlement at that time, but who wish to return later to education and training.
The National Skills Task Force, an advisory committee set up by the Secretary of State to advise him on the skills needs of the nation, recommended that such an entitlement be extended to those up to the age of 25. In its second report, it recommended that,
"All people should be entitled, up to their 25th birthdays, to publicly funded education and training up to a level of capability up to and including first Level III qualifications".
This recommendation echoed that of the Kennedy report, commissioned prior to the election by the Labour Party when it was still in opposition, to help develop its policies on further education. At the time, the report was widely endorsed by the Labour Party.
As the Minister has made clear time and again, that while accepting that the needs of older age groups who have lost out on educational opportunities should be met, priority must at present lie with the 16 to 19 year-old group, and that there are not sufficient resources to meet the needs also of the older group at this time. In his reply to my noble friend Lord Tope on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, stated that,
"We are clear that the LSC's priority must be the 16 to 19 age group and nothing must detract from that. Let us get that right and then focus the increasing resources devoted to adults on enhancing and developing higher level skills … To extend the entitlement has substantial resource implications. Although it is attractive in many ways, that point must be taken into account".—[Official Report, 13/3/00: col. 1332.]
I do not dispute the Government's priorities. The Social Exclusion Unit's report, Bridging the Gap, highlighted the horrifying statistic that some 160,000 young people aged 16 to 19 have dropped out of education and are now neither in employment nor continuing with any further education or training. That is a scandal and a start has to be made—as indeed the Government have done both with the New Deal and in this Bill—to tackle that situation. But—and this is the point of this amendment—we should not forget those who are now older and, having perhaps whiled away their youth, come to realise later that they need qualifications and are therefore keen and motivated to learn, but cannot afford to fund themselves through the relevant courses.
As the Minister has said, extending the entitlement is attractive in many ways, but is too expensive at the moment. This amendment does not extend that entitlement, but it does make provision, on the face of the Bill, for the Secretary of State to extend the entitlement to specific categories of people aged over 19 as and when he has the resources and wishes to do so. As I have indicated, in not extending the entitlement now, the Minister is neglecting the advice of his own appointed advisory group. He is also

409
neglecting the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whose report was welcomed by his party when it was published.
We recognise that resources are limited and that priorities have to be defined, but we are of the opinion that an element of flexibility should be written into the Bill so that, in the future, the Secretary of State may be able to extend the entitlement without further legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: My Lords, being a Cross Bencher and a believer in compromise, I wish to speak to both Amendments Nos. 1 and 6, as they are grouped together. I hope that that is in order.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, has moved an eminently reasonable formula, simply bestowing on the Secretary of State an enabling power allowing for extension beyond the age of 19 where learners might otherwise miss out on their first opportunity on the ladder of lifelong learning. I realise that the Government may not be inclined to make further changes to the Bill at this late stage, but I would hope that, if the amendment is not pushed to a Division, the Government will be minded to enhance the Bill with this amendment in another place.
Turning now to Amendment No. 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the word "compromise" is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as,
"the intermediate state between conflicting opinions".
In the case of this amendment, I genuinely believe that the House has reached a compromise. Protagonists of disability rights, myself included, have argued for an extension of entitlement up to the age of 25 for people with learning difficulties or disabilities—not as a blanket entitlement, but simply as an enabling power to allow learning and skills councils to provide continuity in education; levelling out the proverbial playing field.
To her credit, the Minister has reflected on this view and has proposed this new amendment, Amendment No. 6, to assess the needs of students with learning difficulties up to the age of 25, confident that providers will then make a serious attempt to meet those needs. At best, the Minister's confidence will be upheld, smoothing the passage through further education for young people with disabilities, and at worst we shall at least have a more accurate picture of unmet needs. I should like to thank the Minister for her considerable co-operation and I look forward to observing LSCs and providers working within the spirit, and perhaps beyond the letter, of the law.
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, in replying to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I should like to speak also to the government amendment grouped with it, Amendment No. 6.
410
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, concerns the balance between Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. We have debated this many times, and it is right that we should do so. They are very important clauses that determine the main duties of the LSC. We have focused our debate on the policy and the issues and I believe that we have had useful exchanges of views and clarification of our positions. I shall have more to say on that in a moment. However, perhaps I may begin by drawing the attention of noble Lords to some difficulties with the amendment as it is drafted.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to rewrite a core duty of the LSC— and I should emphasise the fundamental nature of this duty It would allow him to do so without any form of parliamentary scrutiny whatever. He could extend the duty under Clause 2 to adults and in doing so he could specify any conditions that he thought fit. If this amendment became part of the Bill, Parliament would be saying, "Here are the duties set out in Clauses 2 and 3, but don't pay too much attention to them because they can be changed at any time and for any reason, without even informing Parliament".
The amendment would permit a fundamental alteration to primary legislation by administrative fiat without any consultation or proper parliamentary control. If the Government had tabled this amendment, I am in no doubt that we would have been severely criticised. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not raise any concerns about the delegated powers contained in the Bill. Indeed, it was very complimentary. However, it would have had a field day if the Government had sought a power such as this.
However, turning to the substantive points made by the noble Baroness, I doubt that there is much between us in terms of the fundamental priorities for the LSC. The noble Baroness has said before that she agrees with our priority for 16 to 19 year-olds; the issue is whether that priority can be extended to adults who meet specific criteria.
In an earlier debate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked whether we intended to implement the recommendations made in the Kennedy report and in the third report of the National Skills Task Force. Indeed, she made reference to both those reports in her speech today. She is correct; those reports are relevant to the groups she mentioned.
I should like to acknowledge the work done by my noble friend Lady Kennedy in producing the report, and also the key role that it played in informing the direction upon which we are now embarking. In our response to the report on widening participation, we acknowledged the urgency of improving the nation's qualification base, in particular the then 7 million adults with no formal qualifications. That is particularly important given that the number of jobs requiring low skills is declining steeply.
To widen participation, we made clear that we must concentrate on those with few if any qualifications. Noble Lords will be aware that we are making considerable investment in further education. Some of

411
the extra money will be used to tackle the problems that I have just mentioned. By using greater attainment at level two as a stepping stone, we will encourage more people to attain level three. It was no coincidence that we published our response on the same day in February 1998 as we published The Learning Age, our consultation paper on lifelong learning, which in turn informed the proposals contained in our White Paper.
We welcome also the contribution which the skills task force made to the debate on both developing the skills of our young people post-16, and on improving the skills of lower-skilled members of the adult workforce. In the second and third reports, the task force made important contributions to both the analysis of the current situation and in proposing constructive measures to address them. We are sympathetic to the needs of both the groups covered by the task force's entitlement recommendations. There is clearly common ground between both the task force and the Kennedy report in moving not just towards a level two entitlement, but also to a level three entitlement.
It is clearly necessary to have in place a system of incentives and provision which delivers a flow of skilled new entrants to the labour force, and which allows those already in the labour force effective opportunities to improve their skills in addition to what we might term the "academic" route to higher education and beyond. We are looking carefully at the task force's proposals. But given the related public spending implications of an entitlement approach, it is only right that we should consider the proposals alongside other key spending priorities and consider the most cost-effective methods of tackling those issues.
The entitlement issue is a serious one. Placing such duties on the LSC is not a matter of expressing aspirations or long-term aims; it gives legal rights to everyone to whom the duty extends, enforceable in the courts. As I have said on several occasions before, we have no difficulty whatever with the sentiment which gave rise to the amendment, but an entitlement not backed up by significant resources would be meaningless. We expect to make good headway in tackling under-achievement and low attainment and in giving everyone the best opportunities in life that we can.
The noble Baroness indicated that the strength of her amendment is that entitlement could be extended as resources permit. But although agreeing with much of what has been said today, there are other, more acceptable ways, of addressing those concerns. In particular, Clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to attach conditions to the public funds he makes available to the LSC, and that includes the specific provision permitting the Secretary of State to attach conditions in respect of specific groups of people. We have already indicated that we would be willing to use that power in respect of such groups as the unemployed. In principle, as resources become available, there is no reason why the Secretary of State
412
could not indicate a priority for allocation of financial resources towards those without a level two qualification, for example.
In considering the deployment of resources as they become available, the use of provisions related to funding would seem more appropriate, relevant and flexible. What is important is that, as resources permit, we are able to ensure that they reach those who need them. I hope and believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, recognises that that applies equally to students with learning difficulties or disabilities as to any other group of students. In substance, I believe that there is little between us. The debate is about means rather than ends. In view of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 6. Let me say at the outset that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for what he said and for his spirit of compromise. Amendment No. 6 has relevance to Amendment No. 1. It fulfils the commitment that I gave on Report to bring 19 to 25 year-olds with learning difficulties into the scope of Clause 114(3). At present, that subsection gives the Secretary of State power to arrange assessments of 16 to 19 year-olds other than those with statements who leave school at 16 and who are covered by the duty under Clause 114(1) and (2).
The effect of the amendment is to extend the power so that it applies up to the age of 25. It brings this broader age-group within scope of eligibility for an assessment of their education and training needs and hence the provision which is required to meet those needs under Clause 3. Let me expand on what I said on Report, and in so doing I come back to one or two points made by noble Lords during our last debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker—he is not in his place—spoke eloquently about people who, by the age of 19, have not benefited fully from education or training, not through any fault of not trying, but as a result of their learning difficulties. He said that they should not be thrust out of colleges and told that their education has come to an end. My noble friend Lady David made the same point. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, drew attention to the waste when students with learning disabilities do not complete their education and training and was supported in that by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth.
I agree with those sentiments. My amendment goes a long way towards addressing them. Let me give three examples of people who would be eligible to be considered for an assessment under Clause 114(3) if it is accepted: first, young people with learning difficulties who start an FE or training course at 16 but are unable to complete it as other students and do not do so by the age of 19; secondly, young people whose learning difficulties delay the start of their further education or training until the age of 17 or perhaps even 18, and who could not be expected to finish until after the age of 19; thirdly, people whose entry into FE and training is delayed beyond the age of 19 because of their learning difficulties. I believe that picks up the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on Report.

413
There is another group of young people whose interests we must serve. During our discussions on Report I said that I was sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, had said about local education authorities cutting the funding for young people with SEN statements who are still studying at school when they reach their 19th birthday. I am grateful to the noble Lord for writing to me just this week with an example of a recent case where an LEA chose to end the funding of a young person aged 19 before the end of the academic year. Even if only a minority of authorities are taking such action where it is inappropriate, I am determined that that state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. I am pleased to be able to confirm that we will be taking action to stop it happening in future.
Clause 7(2) of the Bill allows the LSC to impose conditions on the way that LEAs use the funds that are allocated to them for their school sixth forms. We intend to use the s provision to require LEAs to ensure that funding for pupils with SEN statements in mainstream school sixth forms, or in special schools, will not simply end on their 19th birthday but will continue until the end of their course. We have other powers in Clause 6 that require FE colleges to act in the same way.
I return to the assessment process. In responding to an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, I made clear on Report that we shall want to offer guidance on how we expect the assessment process to work. I also said that we shall need help from the post-l6 disability consortium, and others, in drawing up that guidance. The guidance will, of course, embrace the full age range covered by Clause 114(3). It will also cover eligibility for an assessment, as well as process.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke of the need for some simplicity. I could not agree more. Where there is good practice now, we have to build on it. But where practice is not good, we must do everything we can to ensure that it changes. I accept very much the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Addington, about the burdens on parents of students with learning difficulties, and on the students themselves. The last thing we want is for such burdens to be made worse by insensitive bureaucracy. Therefore, our guidance will certainly cover that point.
In view of the profound reservations that I have expressed about the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and bearing in mind the assurances I have been able to give to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I should point out that I shall be moving the government amendment at the appropriate time.
4 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I am disappointed that she is not prepared to take our amendment into account and add it to Clause 2. In so far as the drafting is flawed,
414
that could have been tidied up during the Bill's passage through another place. The amendment was drafted specifically to give the Minister concerned flexibility and to allow for the fact that resources are not available at present.
However, I am heartened by the reassurances that the noble Baroness has given that the Secretary of State will use the flexibility that he has under other clauses of the Bill—in particular, Clause 27—to extend entitlement, especially to those who are unemployed. In the light of those reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("() take account of the education and training required to prepare young persons of different abilities and aptitudes for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life outside the workplace;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report I rehearsed the arguments for this amendment which turn on the desirability of having on the face of the Bill a better balance between the duty of the learning and skills council to provide vocational education—education for work—and providing a broader category of education—education for life. At that time, I received support from all sides of the House, as well as from the noble Baroness.
I understand that the noble Baroness will say that she can bring forward a government amendment to Schedule 3, which will cover the point that I made. Therefore, subject to what the noble Baroness says in her response, I shall not press my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry that I was unable to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, completely on these matters in earlier debates. Under its main duties Clause 2(3)(b) already obliges the LSC, when securing proper facilities for those aged 16 to 19, to take account,
"of the different abilities and aptitudes of different persons".
That links directly to the provisions of Clause 2(1) where education is not going to be "suitable to the requirements" of those aged 16 to 19 if the LSC does not prepare them for adult life generally, including life outside the workplace.
This Government want the LSC to make a real difference to people's lives, especially young people, by helping to support families and build stronger neighbourhoods. I can assure the House that the LSC will play a very important role in promoting the benefits of learning outside the workplace—not just the economic benefits, important though they are, but also the personal, family and community benefits that learning can, and should, bring. Therefore, we intend that "training", within the meaning of Clause 2(4)(c), should have as broad a definition as possible; that is why the paragraph refers specifically to,
"vocational, social, physical and recreational I raining".

415
We want to ensure that our young people grow up to make the correct and informed choices that we want them to make, whether that choice is about a career or how to behave socially. Similarly, we are not awaiting the establishment of the LSC to take action on some of the issues that concern the noble Lord; for example, the group established under Professor Crick on citizenship met for the first time in January and is due to report in June or July. Further, the FEFC, as part of its Curriculum 2000 initiative, is creating specific funding for key skills and enrichment courses for full-time 16 to 19 year-olds.
The FEFC's Curriculum 2000 regime explicitly recognises, for the first time, enrichment courses running alongside A-levels and full-time vocational courses. Students undertaking such activities, coupled with key skills, will earn the funding equivalent of a full A-level. At present, a wide range of enrichment activities is eligible, including the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme, work experience, health education and sports.
Nevertheless, I listened to what the noble Lord said today. I should like to offer to try to meet his continuing concerns by making an amendment to the Bill in another place. Schedule 3 to the Bill provides that the council must establish a "young people's learning committee". I accept that the preparation of young people for adult life outside the workplace is where the council can, and should, make a real difference. I believe that there is a case for recognising this by specifying in Schedule 3 that the committee must also consider and advise the council on the matters that I recognise are of such importance to the noble Lord—as, indeed, they are to the Government—and which he has raised in his amendment.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this proposal represents a clear and firm step towards meeting the concerns that he has expressed and that, therefore, he will feel able—as he indicated—to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for those assurances, which I believe meet the case that I was trying to make. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("(e) disproportionate expenditure is expenditure that is wasteful or unrelated to the duties and functions of the Council, but shall not be taken to mean expenditure on provision that, by its nature, has higher unit costs than other forms of provision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief as this matter was discussed during earlier stages of the Bill. My amendment relates to Clause 2(3)(e) and attempts to define more fully the phrase "disproportionate expenditure". As the clause stands, the paragraph could read as though finance—money in the crudest
416
sense—was the total guide to the operation of the councils. Noble Lords know that both I and my noble friends are worried about the effect of such a crude clause on school sixth forms, as against college provision.
We all know that school sixth forms have a higher unit cost because they provide more services; for example, orchestras, drama and moral and religious education. Moreover, in the case of smaller, rural sixth forms, they play a part in the local community. Therefore, we are worried about the provision and feel that greater guidance should be given regarding the position of these bodies. I realise that Ministers have assured us that they will take this into account. As I have said at previous stages of the Bill, I therefore can see no reason why they should object to having it on the face of the Bill. School organisation committees and adjudicators will make decisions on this matter. Legislative direction will be important. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. As he said, we have discussed this matter at every stage of the Bill. At every stage of the Bill I have said that a paragraph which begins with the words,
"make the best use of the Council's resources"
does not need the further words,
"avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
That must be inconsistent with making the best use of the council's resources.
At Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Bach, went to considerable lengths to try to define and explain what all of that meant. However, I became no more convinced. However, if the Government are determined that they must make reference to "disproportionate expenditure", that can only give rise to suspicions which, I must admit, I did not have at first—but others did have—as to what may lie behind the provision. If that does not apply to the current Government and the current Minister—I fully accept that that is the case—once the provision is included on the face of the Bill it is there for all time, until changed. Future Ministers and future governments may be far less benevolent than those who currently occupy the Front Bench. If the Government insist on leaving the words in the Bill, we are right to seek a better definition and a better understanding of the meaning of the words "disproportionate expenditure" in this context.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to say that this matter has been discussed at each stage of the Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness and others who have spoken in all of the debates well understand the arguments. My noble friend has my full support.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, specifically from the point of view of young people with learning difficulties and learning disabilities. I do so declaring, yet again, my interest as the father of a 19 year-old Down's Syndrome girl with

417
mental handicap who is at the moment going through the considerable difficulties of moving from school to further education. I refer to the sort of thing one comes up against—many parents have experienced this—at the moment wit the FEFC and, I fear, in future, with the LSC. Parents who need a special boarding school place for their child are told that that is altogether too expensive and therefore it cannot be allocated. The parents are told that they will have to put up with what is available locally and that the child will have to live in social services accommodation, which may or may not be available, and all that sort of thing.
I should have thought that this amendment, if accepted, would remove all that area of doubt and difficulty for the parents and young people concerned. I also believe that the amendment would fit the Government's laudable determination to achieve joined-up government in this area. The fees of a particular special needs boarding school may look, on the face of it, more expensive than local provision. However, when you go into it, that may not be the case at all. When you have added together the education department's budget and the health and social services departments' costs to look after these young people properly—and, as I have mentioned before, one has now to bring into the equation the Home Office's costs because, unfortunately, a large and growing number of these young people end up in prison because they are not being properly looked after under care in the community—the total cost of what the parents want is often cheaper than that of provision which may be imposed on them as a result of a narrow-minded and short-sighted view of cost comparisons in the education sector alone. Therefore, as I say, I support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I genuinely congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on his tenacity and ingenuity in pursuing this matter during the course of the Bill's passage through this House.
Before I discuss the points that he has made in this short debate, I point out that the first part of his amendment at least is, in our view, both defective and redundant. A statutory body such as the LSC may not act outside its powers. It is clearly a matter for Parliament to set out in legislation the functions of the LSC, its duties and its powers. The LSC will be a statutory body corporate and the statute book will determine what it can do. We do not state anywhere in the Bill that the LSC may not spend money on running hotels or casinos, and, similarly, we do not state in the Bill that it should spend money in a way that is wasteful or unrelated to the duties and functions of the council. We do not need to. All that is required is to say positively what it must do—its duties—and what it may do—its powers. If it is not mentioned, it cannot do it. Expenditure that is unrelated to the functions of the council is not just wasteful; it would be illegal. Moreover, the LSC is already under a duty to make the best use of its resources. We have debated that at some
418
length. We believe that the first part of the amendment would introduce redundant and unnecessary words which repeat what is already clear from the Bill.
I turn to the real point that the noble Lord makes so well. He has made clear his concern that the future of sixth forms, and, in particular, of those in small rural schools, should not be threatened by the creation of the learning and skills council. I repeat—as he would expect me to do—the assurances that we have already given as a government that good sixth forms, wherever they are located, have nothing to fear from this Bill. We want to offer a choice of options for all young people to meet their individual and different needs. As the noble Lord himself indicated at Second Reading, a school sixth form may be the best and most appropriate option for many 16 to 19 year-olds, while for others a college option might be more suitable. We absolutely agree with that. A range of options For young people is a healthy situation.
When we previously debated the issue of what could be regarded as "disproportionate expenditure" we made it clear that nothing in this clause would prevent the learning and skills council from funding provision in a small rural sixth form simply because it might be more expensive than provision elsewhere. We fully recognise that some schools will be more expensive than others simply because of their size and location. In the same way, some provision offered by colleges is more expensive than other provision. The present funding arrangements recognise that. Some provision for individual students is more expensive than for others— here I refer to a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—particularly when we consider the needs of those with learning difficulties. That is already a feature of current funding arrangements, which have developed under exactly the same legal provisions that are in the Bill. I repeat that nothing in the Bill concerns simple cost calculations. Money is not—to use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—the total guide. We fully recognise that much broader considerations must be brought to bear when assessing the need to make provision for young people.
On Report the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that small sixth forms should not be closed down simply because they are small. We agree with him. He made the excellent point that small sixth forms may offer good quality, even though their unit costs are higher than elsewhere. Again, we agree with him. We have said, on the record, that none of the Bill's provisions stops the LSC spending money on expensive provision. We fully accept that high cost provision will be needed in some areas and should he available. The LSC would not be able to fulfil its duties if it failed to make provision that was required, even if that was expensive provision.
We have, of course, listened with care to all that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has said on this issue during the passage of the Bill in this House. We believe that there is nothing between us on this. The Bill as it stands deals with this matter fairly and squarely. We have tried to make that clear on a number of occasions, including today, and we have given assurances that we

419
believe deal exactly with the noble Lord's concerns. We would argue that the amendment is unnecessary. I have repeated the assurances that I have given on behalf of the Government. I hope that that will put the noble Lord's mind at rest and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am grateful for what he said. However, I should point out that he said that the existing situation with the FEFC already caters for the kind of problem that I put forward. If that is so, it will not solve the problem if the LSC continues to use unit costs as a reason not to give young people with learning difficulties, disabilities and mental handicaps what they need; we will be no further forward. Can the Minister say whether the assurances he has given to my noble friend in regard to normal people will apply also to young people with learning difficulties and disabilities, especially where they need residential education?
Lord Bach: My Lords, in general terms I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I should point out that it is set out clearly in Clauses 13, 14 and 114 of the Bill that the needs of those with learning difficulties will be met. They will not be subject—this is the point that I believe the noble Lord is really concerned about—to narrow cost considerations.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am a historian and I admire 19th century statutes which defined what they meant. I share the worry of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that, as it stands, the wording of Clause 2(3)(e),
"might give rise to disproportionate expenditure"
will be interpreted by school organisation committees, adjudicators and, in the end, the courts. I therefore do not feel that there is anything wrong in proposing a definition of "disproportionate expenditure"; I do not think that I am creating a contradiction; and the amendment will meet the points made by my noble friend Lord Pearson. I am afraid that I must ask for the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
4.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordshi0ps divided: Contents, 173; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Barker, B.

Addington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley. L

Alderdice, L.

Bellwin, L.

Aldington, L.

Belstead, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blackwell, L.

Avebury, L.

Blatch, B.

Barber, L.

Bledisloe, V.

420

Boardman, L.

Luke, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bramall, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bridges, L.

McNally, L.

Burnham, L.

Maddock, B.

Buscombe, B.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Caithness, E.

Methuen, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Chilthome Domer, B

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon.B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carrington, L.

Monson, L,

Chalfont, L.

Montrose, D.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Cockfield, L.

Newby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B,

Courtown, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Northboume, L.

Cox, B.

Northbrook, L.

Cranborne, V.

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Deedes, L.

Palmer, L.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dholakia, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dundee, E.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller]

Elliott of Morpeth.L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L. [Teller]

Erroll, E.

Ezra, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Falkland, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone. L

Ferrers, E.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Flather, B.

Prior, L.

Fookes, B.

Pym, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Geddes, L.

Razzall, L.

Geraint, L.

Reay, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rennard. L

Glentoran, L.

Renton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hanham, B

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sandberg, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Sharman, L.

Higgjns, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hogg, B.

Sharpies, B.

Hooper, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howe, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Taverne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Tebbit, L.

Jacobs, L.

Tenby, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jopling, L.

Tope, L.

Kimball, L.

Tordoff, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Vinson, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Vivian, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Waddington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wakefield, Bp.

Lucas, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

421

Weatherill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Wigoder, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Wilcox, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jay of Paddington, B. {Lord Privy Seat)

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Joffe, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Judd, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Levy, L.

Attenborough, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bach, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

Longford, E.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birt, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Blood, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Borrie, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brett, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Brookman, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Burlison, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.[Tellers]

Mishcon, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Christopher, L.

Nicol, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Peston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Prashar, B.

Crawley, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Puttnam, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Desai, L.

Richard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rix, L.

Dubs, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Eatwell, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Elder, L.

Sawyer, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleon, B.

Serota, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sewel, L.

Gale, B.

Shepherd, L.

Gilbert, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Simon, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goudie, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strange, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Greengross, B

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Thomton, B.

Harris of Haringey, L

Tomlinson, L.

Harrison, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayman, B.

Uddin, B.

Healey, L.

Varley, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Warner, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, It.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.32 p.m.
Clause 55 [Right of entry and offences]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 24, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) In respect of education or training provided by an employer in the workplace, the right of entry conferred by subsection (2) may be exercised only if the employer has been given reasonable notice in writing.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, the intention of this amendment is to place an obligation upon the adult learning inspectorate to give reasonable notice in writing to an employer where it intends to conduct an inspection of workplace education and training provided by that employer.
The House will recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, brought forward a similar amendment on Report when she expressed concern that employers might be placed under an undue burden by the new inspectorate. She also argued that we needed the same provisions for England as those which already apply to Wales under Clause 76 of the Bill.
Your Lordships will recall that on behalf of the Government I accepted all her points, although I invited her to withdraw the amendment, which she was kind enough to do, while we reflected on the exact wording. We have now done so and have made a very minor addition for clarification, inserting a reference to Clause 55(2). Otherwise, the amendment is identical to that proposed by the noble Baroness. I have pleasure in commending this change to the House, and I thank the noble Baroness for her assistance. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and I thank him most warmly for what he has done between the Report stage and Third Reading. I gratefully accept what is proposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Provision of services]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 47, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) In exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall ensure that any action he takes—

(a) does not adversely affect the quantity or quality of existing information, advice and guidance services provided for young people;

(b) fulfils his duties to all young people under sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 and sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Education Act 1997.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Careers Service, in its new guise as the Connexions service, continues to provide careers advice, information and guidance to all young people and does not find all its efforts swallowed up by the new mentoring and personal adviser service which is to concentrate on the disadvantaged. In this sense, the amendment merely reiterates what the Minister has already told us. In the debate on Report, the Minister said:
"Let me finally confirm that the Secretary of State's duties and powers to secure career services will remain and that the delivery of those services to 13-19 year-olds will be within the context of

423
the wider range of support provided by the Connexions service … However, that is not to say that in the future careers provision will be in any way subordinated … such provision will be an absolutely key element of the Connexions service".—[Official Report, 14/3/00; col. 1503.]
The Minister continued, at col. 1504:
"This new service is really going to be for all young people, whatever their circumstances and abilities. Careers provision will be a core function of the service … For many young people this will be the part of the service to which they really want access. It will apply to the great majority who are on track towards achieving appropriate learning goals, to doing well at school and going on to post-school education and who face rather few barriers to reaching their potential".
Why then, if the Minister has given those reassurances, do we raise this issue again and seek to get such reassurances written on to the face of the Bill? It is because the Minister's plans seem to us to be overambitious and her sums do not add up. In addition, evidence is emerging from many different areas of the country that those in mainstream education are not getting access to the advice and guidance they need because priorities within the service are shifting towards providing intensive help and mentoring for the disadvantaged, which is the other new half of the Connexions service.
I deal first with the resources element. We know that the aim is to gradually build up the Connexions service, which will eventually cost about £500 million. The Minister made clear that there is at present a shortfall of resources. She said, again on Report, at col. 1504:
"We are committed to resourcing the Connexions service properly. Some of those resources will come from the pooling of existing central government resources and some from those already devoted by local partners to youth support and guidance. Of the existing resources that we expect agencies to contribute, about half will be made up of the existing Careers Service budget".
She added:
"We are also considering what additional funding will be required as part of the Government's Year 2000 Spending Review".
However, the Minister also assured the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the Government would not be taking funds away from the local authority-provided Youth Service. Therefore, the bulk of the funding has to come from the Careers Service, plus whatever new money is allocated in next July's Comprehensive Spending Review. We know that the Careers Service currently costs slightly less than £250 million, which means that the Government will be seeking between £200 million and £250 million out of the next Comprehensive Spending Review in order to finance this new service. Some of it may perhaps already have come in Tuesday's Budget announcement that an extra £1 billion will be given to education. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether any of that money is to be devoted to the Connexions service.
The problem is that what is being proposed is a very much expanded role for the Careers Service, providing, as we have heard, mainstream information, advice and guidance to young people between the ages of 13 and 19 who are in school or college or who are seeking
424
employment, but also becoming, in the schools, learning mentors, working with all pupils facing barriers to learning to help them to re-engage in effective learning, and, outside the school environment, personal advisers within the Learning Gateway programme. Indeed, during the past year some 1,500 careers advisers have switched to become such personal advisers. But there are only 7,000 careers advisers at present and until new resources are injected into the programme they cannot fulfil all of these functions.
We do not question the value of personal advice and mentoring services in helping disadvantaged young people back into mainstream education and training, but until further resources are provided—they will be available, at the earliest, in April 2001, or, more likely, April 2002, if they are to come from the Comprehensive Spending Review—the new service cannot be provided without detracting from the current level of provision for the Careers Service.
Moreover, there is already evidence that this is happening. The noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke on Report of the consultation document which was being circulated. That document suggests that some 47 per cent of students in the under-16 age group and 63 per cent of those in the post-16 age group, mainly those achieving five A to Cs in their GCSEs—in other words, mainstream good students—will require only paper-based or IT-based advice and will not need, or be guaranteed, access to trained careers advisers or counsellors.
A parent in the South West has a daughter in the sixth form who needs help to plan her future options and routes. A modern apprentice? A degree? Which subject? Which university? Why? She is denied access to a careers adviser because the Careers Service has been contractually directed to work with "higher priority groups" rather than students of average or above average ability.
Another parent writes:
"My two older children had careers interviews in year 11 and in the sixth form. They were really helpful. Now our next son is not getting any advice. He is being discriminated against because he is clever. It's not fair".
Another parent writes:
"Surely, my daughter needs more careers guidance than someone who will not get five Cs at GCSE—she has more options to choose [from]".
Another says:
"My daughter can't choose her A-levels—how will she choose her degree and job without proper careers advice?"
One parent on the south coast summed up the problem about rationing access to careers advice according to so-called academic ability or problems of attendance, drugs and so on, as follows:
"Does this mean [that] if my daughter truants from school next week she will get an early careers guidance interview?"
At a recent young people's conference in the Isle of Wight, called "Wight 2B Heard", many questioned why careers guidance services were being taken away from sixth-form students. All of this indicates that there are already problems in providing the guidance

425
which the Secretary of State has a duty to provide. It is riot fair to young people to withdraw those services from them.
We do not deny the needs of the disadvantaged. By the provision of the personal adviser and mentoring services, which are regarded as an important part of the Connexions document, the disadvantaged will be helped. But that should not be at the expense of the current information, advice and guidance service offered to 90 per cent of young people in mainstream education and training. This amendment reinforces that point arid puts on the face of the Bill the assurances that the Minister has given. In so doing it strengthens her arm. Therefore, in her discussions and those of the Secretary of State with the Treasury there may be greater strength behind their plea for more resources. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her letter of 21st March which clarifies a good many points but leaves me with some uncertainties that I should like to clear up before she responds to the debate. In Committee my noble friend Lord Bach said that in schools the learning mentor would be the "first point of advice". But the main purpose of the learning mentors in the Excellence in Cities programme, as the Minister reminds me in her letter, is to work with pupils who face barriers to learning; in other words, with some, but not all, pupils, and on learning issues rather than careers advice. On what basis is that regarded as an adequate replacement for the current arrangements? I remind noble Lords that the present arrangements are based on a partnership between, on the one hand, a careers team and pastoral care tutors within the school and, on the other, a careers adviser based outside the school who is in touch with employers skilled in careers interviewing and able to offer genuinely impartial advice.
Is the system which is working well now to be dismantled, or will the learning mentor still have access, within the Connexions service, to specialist careers advisers based outside the school? The Minister suggested at Report stage, on 14th March, at col. 1505, that that might be the case. However, my noble friend also indicates in her letter that she hopes the majority of personal advisers will be drawn from careers advisers. Since currently there are only 7,000 careers advisers working in the Careers Service in the whole of England, Scotland and Wales, and the Government estimate that they will require between 15,000 and 20,000 personal advisers, the Minister's hope seems doomed to disappointment. The figures simply do not add up. Even if all careers advisers become personal advisers they will provide only some, not most, of the numbers needed. But then there will be no specialist careers advisers left to whom the learning mentors and personal advisers can refer.
The reality appears to be that the Government want to provide personal advisers for all young people, which is an admirable aim if it can be achieved. They will provide the first level of advice and support and identify young people's needs. They will then be able to
426
refer to specialists where that is required. But, despite Ministers' suggestions to the contrary, it seems that the one area where that will not be the case is careers advice, because the only budget which has been brought totally into the new service is that for the Careers Service which is controlled directly by the Department for Education and Employment. The result seems likely to be a loss of the expertise on which most students and their parents depend in making their way through an ever more complex series of course choices, which are also career choices. Many noble Lords may not be aware of their complexity, particularly for 16 to 18 year-olds. At the very time when the maze becomes more complex the key expert support to help students and parents find their way through it is being removed.
I should welcome the Minister's response to three very clear questions. First, will all young people continue to have access not only to a personal adviser/learning mentor but also to a specialist careers adviser? Secondly, how many careers advisers need to remain as careers advisers to make this possible? Thirdly, how many careers advisers does this release to become personal advisers/learning mentors?
Finally, I would welcome my noble friend's comments on two other questions that I posed at Report stage to which I have not received answers. First, how do Ministers propose to ensure that there is a seamless transition from the Connexions service to information, advice and guidance services for adults? We have received a promise as to that in paragraph 6·13 of the Connexions policy document but no detail. Secondly, at the moment there is a major concern that the existing funding sources for adult guidance, as opposed to information and advice, are drying up. We are afraid that by the time the learning and skills council comes into being many guidance services will have disappeared with the loss of experience and expertise that that entails. The Minister suggests in her letter that steps are being taken to provide transitional funding. Is that correct?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the first part of this amendment requires the Secretary of State to maintain the quality and quantity of existing information, advice and guidance services for young people. The second part is a rather different kettle of fish. It requires the Secretary of State to fulfil his existing statutory duties with respect to careers education and careers information, advice and guidance services. So it would have no legal effect whatsoever. That is why we are somewhat surprised that it should be included in an amendment. A statutory duty is a statutory duty. We do not need repeated in legislation that the Secretary of State must fulfil his statutory duties laid out elsewhere. We are happy to reiterate reassurances in this House as many times as we are asked, but I do not believe that noble Lords would think that their time was being put to good use if we started to repeat legislation along the lines that the Secretary of State must do what he must do! However, real concerns underlie the amendment; and I address them rather than the amendment itself.

427
First, I am happy to repeat the assurances that we have given at each stage of this Bill: that we are committed to ensuring that there will be no reduction in the provision of information, advice and guidance services for young people in the future. Indeed, the whole rationale for introducing the Connexions Service is that it will improve delivery of such provision through a long overdue, more integrated approach to supporting young people.
The Government are aware of noble Lords' concerns that the Connexions Service should be adequately resourced for its functions. We have repeated many times that this is our absolute intention; and that one of the objectives of phasing in the service is to ensure that there is both sufficient funding and sufficient trained personnel to deliver the high quality provision that we intend as a hallmark of the Connexions Service.
Further concerns have been expressed that existing resources, in particular Careers Service and Youth Service resources, will not stretch to the enhanced provision envisaged. We agree that if the Connexions Service were no more than an umbrella beneath which these services continued to operate as before, this might well be the case. But our intention is for a radically new, integrated, modern support service for young people—a transformation of the existing unsatisfactory situation where a whole range of discrete services deal with the same young person separately.
We believe that there are also savings to be made from the elimination of expensive duplication; for example, in assessing young people's needs and maintaining records. There are also opportunities to exploit new, more effective—including costeffective—ways of disseminating information and advice; for example, ICT options such as Connexions Direct, which we shall be piloting in the north-east of England. Facilities such as these offer the prospect of freeing up personal adviser time to focus on the more highly skilled aspects of guidance in careers and related matters. All young people need such guidance at some point in their lives and we have set out on previous occasions how every young person will have access to a personal adviser's support as and when they need it.
We do not promise that careers information, advice and guidance will continue to be delivered as now— indeed, we hope that it will not. It is vital that the delivery of all services keeps up with progress, and in particular with progress in technological innovation. Young people will cease to see it as relevant if it does not. But we do intend to improve provision using innovative delivery techniques which we believe will be attractive to young people, widen their horizons, and raise their aspirations. We believe that this will be a real possibility through the new, integrated Connexions Service.
We have given assurances that careers advice will be a core element of the Connexions Service; that there will be no reduction in careers provision—indeed, that
428
we expect it to improve; that Connexions personal advisers will be trained in delivering careers advice and guidance; and that every young person—I repeat myself but it is an important point—will have access to a Connexions personal adviser as and when they need it. We cannot guarantee that every young person will wish or need to have a careers interview. Many are very clear about what they want to do and can access expert advice at home, but for every young person who needs it a careers interview will, of course, be available.
In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness asked about the £1 billion extra money announced for education in the successful Budget introduced a couple of days ago by my right honourable friend in another place. I am delighted to say that it seems to have been received warmly not just by the governing party but by the party opposite and no doubt by the Liberal Democrats. Until the spending review is completed in the summer, we do not know what proportion will be allocated to the Connexions programme.
My noble friend Lady David asked a series of questions. I hope that she will understand that I cannot give her, for example, information on the number of advisers; but I guarantee to write to her with those numbers, and the answers to her other questions; and I shall place a copy in the Library.
On transitional costs, we recognise that there will be additional costs as careers companies and their staff prepare for the new arrangements although we seek to ensure that those are minimised. A working group has been established on transitional issues to consider the implications for the Careers Service; and we are considering the provisions needed to meet those costs in the year 2000 spending review.
I hope that I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, enough reassurance for her to accept that we mean what we say in setting up the new Connexions Service. We mean it to be an exciting new project that will look after all that is best in the Careers Service now, but also improve on it. In that spirit, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, these are the same assurances we have received previously. We do not believe that the sums add up. The Minister can give us no assurance today that any of the money mentioned on Tuesday will be devoted to this service. We shall have to wait until July to be clear about the precise amount.
In addition, there is increasing evidence that there is at present some discrimination in the Careers Service against the more able pupils in favour of the more disadvantaged. I should like, therefore, to test the opinion of the House.
4.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 156; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Arran, E.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Attlee, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Avebury, L.

Laingof Dunphail, L.

Barber, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Barker, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bell, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Blackwell, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Luke, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bum ham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buscombe, B.

McNally, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Maddock, B.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Methuen, L.

Carncgy of Lour, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Chadlington, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Courtown, E.

Montrose, D.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Cratliorne, L.

Murtonof Lindisfarne, L.

Criekhowell, L.

Newby, L.

Cuckney, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Northbrook, L.

Deedes, L.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dholakia, L.

Onslow, E.

Dundee, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Ezra, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Feldman, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Flather, B.

Plumb, L.

Fookes, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Forsyth of Dramlean, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Freeman, L.

Prentice, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Prior, L.

Geddes, L.

Pym, L.

Geraint, L.

Quinton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rawlings, B.

Glentoran, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Rennard, L

Hamwee, B.

Rix, L.

Hanham, B

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Peckham, L

Rogan, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Russell, E.

Henley, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Higgins, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hooper, B.

Seccombe, B.

Howe, E.

Sharman, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sharpies, B.

Inglewood, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jacobs, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

430

Stewartby, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Swinfen, L.

Vinson, L.

Taveme, L.

Vivian, L.

Thatcher, B.

Waddington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wakeham, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Watson ot Richmond, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wigoder, L.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Wilcox, B.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alli, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor]

Attenborough, L.

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Blackburn. Bp.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Blood, B.

Laird, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bragg, L.

Levy, L.

Bramall, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bridges, L.

Longford, E.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brookman, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Milnerof Leeds, L.

Crawley, B.

Mishcon, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nickson, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Northbourne, L.

Desai, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Donoughue, L.

Paul, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Hightield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Elder, L.

Prashar, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Flowers, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Richard, L.

Gilbert, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sewel, L.

Greengross, B.

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Simon, V.

Harrison, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L

Healey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Strange, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

431

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Thomton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Tombs, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L

Tomlinson, L.

Whitaker, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Whitty, L.

Uddin B

Wilkins, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Varley, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Wakefield, Bp.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Warnock, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.7 p.m.
Clause 114 [Assessments relating to learning difficulties]:
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 52, line 40, leave out ("19") and insert ("25").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
SEX EDUCATION: SECRETARY OF STATE'S GUIDANCE
(" .—(1) The Education Act 1996 shall be amended as follows.
(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—
"Sex education: Secretary of State's guidance.
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 and its importance for family life and for the brining up of children;

(b) learn the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society;

(c) learn to respect themselves and others;

(d) are given accurate information for the purposes of enabling them to understand difference and of preventing or removing prejudice;

(e) are protected from inappropriate teaching and materials.

(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 contributes 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) The Secretary of State may at any time revise his guidance.
(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."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, debate so far about this amendment has been confused and disconnected from the truth. Since it was tabled, there has been a great deal of comment in the press, and I regret that much of it has been factually inaccurate or ill informed. In this debate we must at least be clear about the facts. I therefore think it important to set out at the beginning of the debate a clear explanation of what the amendment contains and a clear and unambiguous statement of why the Government have tabled it.
The amendment has been constructed very carefully to reflect the major issues that affect the provision of sex and relationships education and to create a sensitive balance. First, the amendment emphasises the need to learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children. That reflects the primacy of marriage in current society. The amendment is clear about that.
The amendment also emphasises the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society. This recognises that, while marriage is a key institution, there are other forms of relationship that are of value and provide love and stability for adults and children. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn recognised this when he spoke on the "Today" programme last Thursday. He said:
"We have got to live in the real world. In the real world there are relationships which are outside marriage, but one would actually presume that stable relationships within society are better than promiscuous and unstable relationships".
That is a particularly important point and I know that many in this House will be reassured that the draft guidance which was issued last Thursday builds on this. It emphasises the need for teachers not to stigmatise children from families and relationships other than marriage.
In the amendment, we want to balance those positive requirements with safeguards to protect children. That is why a key objective is to be protected from inappropriate teaching and materials. There has been a great deal of public comment about the type of material that might go into schools as a result of the proposals and as a consequence of the repeal of Section 28. A great deal of concern has been stirred up unnecessarily and I am sorry that this House has played its part in that. The provision makes clear that school governing bodies and headteachers must have regard to the need to select appropriate teaching content and materials. Our guidance emphasises that this should be done in conjunction with parents.
The remaining sections of the amendment provide for children in secondary schools to learn about human sexuality, the reasons for delaying sexual activity and the benefits from doing so, and how to obtain appropriate advice on sexual health. The draft guidance backs that up by setting out very clearly the

433
basis on which teachers should approach such sensitive topics. The Government hope that as a result teaching will be more confident and information more effective.
Finally, the amendment places sex education firmly in the broader context of spiritual and moral education and preparation for adult life, which have long been established as the fundamental basis of education.
Having described the content of the amendment, I shall explain why we have brought it forward. In part, we want to set aside fears and concerns relating to the Government's intention to repeal Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986; or "Section 28", as it has become known. This is not the time or place to enter into another debate on the repeal of Section 28, but I must briefly address the issue. Section 28 prohibits local authorities from intentionally promoting homosexuality of publishing material with that intent, and from promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
That provision applies to the activities of local authorities themselves and has never applied to the activities of the governing bodies and staff of schools. Section 28 has always been a negative provision. By that, I mean that it has only ever forbidden what should happen. It gives no guidance as to what should happen in this sensitive area where the needs of all young people in school are required to be met. It undermines teachers in carrying out their duties and it has caused confusion. The Government are right to seek to repeal it for that reason alone, let alone any other. What is needed is clear guidance to teachers telling them what they can do rather than what they cannot and this amendment and guidance seeks to do just that.
Many of the arguments and concerns voiced about local authorities and the provision of sex and relationship education in schools, however deeply felt, simply do not take account of the fact that a local authority now has no power to determine the sex education policy in a school. That task falls to the governing body and headteacher of the school. They do so in consultation with parents. Concerns have also been expressed about what should be taught within sex and relationships education in respect of marriage and stable relationships.
For those reasons, the Government are bringing forward this amendment to the Learning and Skills Bill which will place a clear statutory duty on the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to issue guidance on sex and relationship education in schools. Under the amendment, governing bodies of maintained schools, headteachers and LEAs are under a duty to have regard to the guidance. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, as chair of the Church of England Board of Education, and Archbishop Nichols of the Catholic Education Service Bishops said last week in their combined press release, it will,
"provide more direct and effective protection for pupils and schools in England and Wales than Section 28. The proposed amendment will put broad responsibilities on teachers and
434
governors to protect their pupils and to provide positive sex education within the context of their spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development".
In tabling the amendment, the Government have recognised the need for the guidance on sex and relationship education to be firmly rooted within the wider general provisions of the school curriculum and the new Personal, Social and Health Education Framework which was issued last November. This is the first time that schools have had a national framework for teaching in this area. It will play a vital role in helping pupils deal with difficult moral and social questions that arise in their lives and in society.
The national curriculum and the PSHE framework now have a statement of values setting out the fundamental principles underlying the curriculum. I refer to the statement of values by the National Forum for Values in Education and in the Community, which is contained and set out in the new national curriculum handbooks issued in November. The remit of the forum was to decide whether there were any values that were commonly agreed upon across society. The forum found that there was indeed a consensus. Within the statement of values, there is a section on society. In that section, the forum found that among other things we value families as sources of love and support for all their members, and as a basis of a society in which people care for others. The forum concluded that we as a society support the institution of marriage, but crucially recognised that the love and commitment required for a secure and happy childhood can also be found in families of many different kinds.
We cannot divorce this House from this reality. We here represent a wide range of society and it is our duty to reflect not only that wide diversity, but also what is generally known as the common good. As such, the amendment and the guidance have both had to steer a sensible course between the importance of marriage and family life and the need to respect diversity and difference.
Of course the Government support the institution of marriage. How could we not? It is the mainstay of many, many families. But the reality is that not everyone chooses this course, however much some would like to persuade them to do so. I have spoken of the National Forum for Values in Education and the Community which set out to find a common consensus on values. The Government also recognise, as we did in the Home Office ministerial group on the family document, Supporting Families, that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. It is particularly important to signal support to those in single parent families.
Concern has been expressed about the references in Amendment No. 7 to "marriage and stable relationships". It has been argued that that gives moral equivalence to marriage and homosexual relationships. It has even been suggested that that equivalence has legal force. That is a complete misunderstanding of the Government's position. The amendment is very clear on that. We support the

435
institution of marriage and recognise its place in society. We recognise that other types of relationship exist and can be stable and successful.
No realistic sex and relationship education could ignore that reality. But we are not changing the legal or moral status of any particular form of relationship in this amendment. When sex and relationship education is delivered in school to pupils, we are talking not just of what type of relationship those pupils may move on to, but their current family circumstances. It would be quite wrong to signal to those children not in conventional married households that they are of less worth than others. School is a place for children to learn, not for them to be ostracised. Care and sensitivity need to be taken in delivering sex and relationships education so that there is no stigmatisation of children based on their home circumstances.
I ask noble Lords to remember that the guidance which my department is issuing for consultation arose out of a recommendation of the Teenage Pregnancy Report, and the need to address the issue of the high rate of teenage pregnancy in this country. I should like to remind the House that the recommendations in the Teenage Pregnancy Report were also the subject of a wide debate and consensus.
Research shows that effective sex education set within a context of relationships does not encourage early sexual experimentation. It does the opposite—it delays it. We have a duty to inform pupils at school of the biological basics of sex education. That is already required by the national curriculum science order. But it is clear from talking to young people that they want not only biological knowledge, but also to talk about relationships, they want to talk about their feelings and the wider social context of those relationships.
The Teenage Pregnancy Report addressed these issues and recommended good clear guidance to help teachers. The task of delivering sex and relationship education is not an easy one. Effective sex and relationship education cannot be delivered by teachers who lack confidence and are unsure of the boundaries and parameters that they work within.
The purpose of the guidance is to set out those parameters. It gives clear guidance on the choice of materials, it sets sex and relationships education within a values framework, and how to develop the skills and understanding of young people. It gives advice to schools on how to establish and monitor their policy and how to involve parents and the wider community. In short it is a comprehensive guide, drafted to attend to the needs of all young people in our schools. I think it particularly important to stress the needs of all young people in our schools regardless of their home background, and regardless of their own awakening sexuality.
The expectations placed on this guidance have now increased substantially since the matter of the repeal of Section 28 has taken on such significance. It is precisely because of those increased expectations and the need for the guidance to reflect some of those
436
concerns that we have held discussions with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, Archbishop Nichols and others to bring forward a government amendment that would place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance, to set out the principles to inform that guidance and the objectives to be met when sex and relationship education is taught. Officials in my department have also consulted representatives of all the major faith groups and others such as those in the professional health services so that their concerns were reflected in the guidance which is now out for consultation. We are most grateful to all those consulted, especially to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and to Archbishop Nichols.
The amendment will not change the existing legislation which allows parents to withdraw their children from sex and relationship education classes over and above that required by the national curriculum. That additional safeguard is there for parents who are still not happy with the sex and relationship education being given to their children. I think it important to pause here for a moment and reflect on the fact that although this provision has existed in law for some years it is very rarely used. This surely must be a testament to our teachers and the sensitive way in which they have involved parents. It is in their hands, in partnership with governors and parents, that the task of delivering effective sex and relationship education lies.
I hope it will be helpful to clarify the position of the Welsh Assembly in relation to this amendment and to the guidance. It will be for the Welsh Assembly to decide what action it should take in relation to the provision of sex education in its schools.
I finish by reminding the House of the issue before us. Sex and relationship education is about physical, moral and emotional development. It is teaching about sex, sexuality and sexual health so that young people learn to respect themselves and others as they move with confidence from childhood through adolescence into adulthood. It is not about the promotion of sexual orientation or sexual activity. This would be inappropriate teaching and both the amendment and the guidance firmly make that point.
This amendment will set in place enabling legislation and clear guidelines that will help teachers rather than hinder them. I beg to move.
Baroness Youngmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 8:
Line 12, after ("marriage") insert ("as the key building block of society;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are being asked to consider a most important amendment at the Third Reading of this Bill. We have had barely a week since its publication. We have been refused a recommittal of this clause when we would have had adequate time—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely obliged to the noble Baroness. It is not true that the Opposition

437
were refused recommittal. I was approached on Monday. I said that I was prepared to consider it but that I needed certain information, such as the amendments which the Opposition proposed to table. The noble Baroness's amendment was tabled yesterday. The House did not see it until today. I did not receive that information. The recommitment Motion needed to be tabled yesterday in order for the Public Bill Office to operate. I did not receive the information which would have enabled me to take a decision on recommitment. It is not true that I stopped recommitment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not intend to take up the time of the House on an argument on this matter. If the noble Lord the Chief Whip considers that it is an easy matter to draft amendments at two days' notice on something that one has just seen, and to try to draft them, as I would hope, accurately, he is asking a great deal of people who, after all, are volunteers.
At the outset I must make it clear that the government amendment is not a substitute for what has come to be known in shorthand as Section 28. As the noble Baroness made clear, the amendment before us is expected to be a substitute for Section 28, which the Government expect to repeal. The minimum requirement that I and those who have been good enough to support me need is both Section 28 and the amendments that I and my colleagues are proposing. Even so, health promotion units—in case your Lordships are unaware of what those are, it is the new name for health education authorities—are not covered either in the Local Government Bill or in this one. But that is a matter to which we must return on a future occasion.
I say that because in speaking today I know that I am speaking for the overwhelming majority of the population which does not want the promotion of homosexuality in schools. I have had some 4,000 letters begging me to stand firm; letters from teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, hundreds of church-goers, parents, grandparents and even a few homosexuals. For the issue which we are debating has touched a chord in the British people. In persisting in these extraordinary policies, the Government are not acting in a way that the majority want. The issue crosses party. It is not a party political matter. I know that people in the Labour heartlands of Scotland and Wales and the big cities are as disturbed about it as Conservatives are. It is an issue on which all the great religions—the M0Dslems, the Jews and the Christians—are united. I and those who have been good enough to indicate that they support me are not, as we are sometimes called, a bigoted minority. On the contrary, we are a majority; and the House, in voting last month to keep Section 28, reflected that majority.
Today, we are standing for the protection of children and the support of parents. In today's world, parents find it very difficult to bring up children, with all the temptations before them. When their children are in school, they do not want homosexuality to be promoted; nor do they want their children to be
438
subjected to the literature which many of us have seen. That literature is currently promoted by health promotion authorities and, quite simply, people find it appalling.
I now turn to the Government's amendment. I recognise that some in the House today would like to find a compromise on this difficult issue and they believe that this provides one. I suspect that that is the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. Others believe that Section 28 will in any event be repealed and, therefore, it would be better, as some have said to me, to try to get the best that they can. At first glance, there is an attraction in the amendment. It starts by supporting marriage and the importance of family life. That is something upon which I believe we all agree. As the noble Baroness made plain, it reinforces what the Government said in their consultation document, Supporting Families.
However, the amendment goes on to state in subsection (2)(b) that stable relationships, which are not and have not been defined but which could mean "homosexual unions", are,
"key building blocks of community and society",
along with marriage. The legal advice that I have been given is that the equivalence of marriage and homosexual unions plainly contradicts the precedence given to marriage in the first statement in subsection (2)(a) and opens the way for the promotion of homosexuality in schools. The guidance makes clear that pupils can and are to be taught that homosexual unions are a key building block in society, equivalent to marriage.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has already been quoted, I hope that he will not mind my saying that I heard him on the "Today" programme where he admitted that there was a loophole in the Government's amendment. Therefore, the Government's amendment is not a substitute for Section 28 but, equally important, it is not a compromise on the central issue. The fact that Stonewall, the homosexual lobby, has welcomed the government amendment should underline that point.
My first two amendments are designed to deal with that major flaw. The first, Amendment No. 8, separates "marriage" as a key building block from "stable relationships". It is given precedence. The second amendment refers to "stable relationships" and is amended to read stable "family relationships", thus tightening the definition and accepting that children's stability is important. It would apply even if parents were not married. I have used the term "family", as in "family life", which was originally used in Section 46 of the Education Act 1986, now Section 403 of the 1996 Act.
These two amendments are central to my case. As I said, they are not a substitute for Section 28, which applies to local authorities. They apply to schools and, in particular, to teachers and governing bodies. We need both because Section 28 has been effective. It is a longstop. Those who, with the Government, want the repeal really cannot argue, as they did a month ago, that Section 28 should be repealed because it has been too

439
strong. We were told that it encouraged bullying and prevented teachers from explaining homosexuality and counselling pupils. Today, those people say that Section 28 should be repealed because it does not apply to schools. They say that it has no effect and should go. Really, one must make up one's mind one way or the other what one believes. However, that 180 degree turn within a month seems to me rather strange, even for this Government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness no doubt recalls speaking to this House about the importance of sending a signal. Does she agree that Section 28 sent a signal which many of us believe had a thoroughly undesirable effect?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Earl that Section 28 sent a signal. I believe that that signal was good and had a good effect. The majority of people in this country believe so too.
My third amendment is intended to strengthen and define much more closely what is meant by "inappropriate materials". I was very surprised at the complacent attitude adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on this matter. Many noble Lords visited the exhibition which we arranged in this House. I do not believe that one Member came away other than deeply shocked by material which was paid for out of public funds and which is currently used in youth groups or was used in schools before 1988.
The government amendment leaves the definition of "inappropriate" entirely to subjective judgment. The form of words in my amendment,
"[what] a reasonable person would regard as inappropriate",
is a recognised legal concept which I believe the courts can interpret. Furthermore, the question of "appropriateness" is placed within the setting of Sections 403, 403A and 403B. That means that the emphasis on marriage must be respected. The exhibition which I held illustrated all too vividly the type of material that was used in some schools pre-1988 and which today is promoted by health promotion units and some education authorities. Some of the books which were produced for use in primary schools were, quite simply, sickening. Under those circumstances, I feel that it is essential that we have a much tighter definition of "inappropriate".
My next amendment, Amendment No. 17, would require that any substantial changes to the guidelines that the Secretary of State might propose must be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. That is what happens to each of the 10 subjects of the national curriculum. Now that sex education is to have far more detailed objectives in law, which the accompanying guidance—all 28 pages of it—shows, I believe that substantive changes similarly should be subject to affirmative resolution. That is clearly entirely in line with the practice for national curriculum subjects.
The last amendment, Amendment No. 19, which I have tabled relates to a new issue. Under the law as it stands, parents have a right to withdraw their children
440
from sex education lessons if they so choose. This amendment would enable parents to be consulted about the nature and content of the syllabus and the teaching material used. It would represent a new statutory right and would reflect the best practice of some of the best schools.
In summing up, in my amendments I do not object to or speak against the whole of the government amendment. I have already said that I welcome the statement on marriage and, in subsection (4)(b),
"the reasons for delaying sexual activity and the benefits to be gained from such delay".
Like all noble Lords, I am appalled that we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the European Union. Clearly, if anything can be done to correct that situation then, of course, it should be done.
The amendments which I tabled today are designed to strengthen marriage, increase the safeguards against inappropriate material, safeguard Parliament's right over the curriculum and strengthen the rights of parents. Above all, they are designed to protect children. Had the government amendment been recommitted, we would have had time to discuss the matter more fully and I would have given a longer and more detailed explanation of all the points that I have put forward. As it is, I hope very much that these amendments will commend themselves to the House. I believe that that would enable us to accept an amended government amendment which would improve the Learning and Skills Bill. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, following the withdrawal of my amendment in Committee, I must begin my remarks by thanking the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and his officials for the courteous and painstaking way in which they have listened, over and over again, to the concerns which the Archbishop of Birmingham and I, with our advisers, have expressed and for their co-operation in these past weeks.
I assure the House that there have been no deals, but there has been what I regard as an intelligent and realistic discussion of some of the complex and sensitive issues involved in the light of the fears of many people at the prospect of the repeal of Section 28.
Given the negative critical response of the more extreme protagonists on both sides of the debate to this government amendment before the House, while we do not have all that we should have liked, I believe that the present amendment goes a significant way towards achieving what is required. I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of this House—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is absolutely right about that—who have sent me their appreciation and support for our efforts to find an appropriate way forward.
But as the debate has continued and my own character and intelligence, to say nothing of my ability to carry out my episcopal responsibilities, have been called into question—and in some correspondence in the vilest of language—I have grown increasingly concerned about one crucial matter. I am most

441
grateful to the Minister for confirming this afternoon that, contrary to popular opinion expressed repeatedly in the media, I and my advisers, with our colleagues in the Catholic Education Service with whom we have been working very closely, were right in the presumption on which I moved my original amendment to the Local Government Bill; namely, that since the last government introduced the national curriculum, the responsibility for sex education in maintained schools has been one in which a local authority cannot promote sex education or personal relationships education without the approval of the governors and the head teacher of each school, with a parental right of withdrawal. In my own mind I have been very clear that that has been the case but the media and many in the country do not seem to have grasped that simple fact.
The previous government placed the serious responsibility on our schools to deliver sex education in such a way as to,
"have due regard to moral considerations and the values of family life".
But it does not seem to me that much attention was given as to how that was to be interpreted in the classroom except that local authorities could not promote homosexuality.
According to press reports, if the present amendment to my original amendment, with its inclusion of the importance of marriage, is seen by some, with the guidance now out for consultation, to be open to varying degrees of interpretation and to open the floodgates to the promotion in the nation's classrooms of undesirable life-styles, I can only wonder what is happening out there at present since this government amendment is far more explicit as to values than Section 403 of the Education Act 1996.
Secondly, this evening I want to express a real sympathy for actual teachers in actual schools trying to do this job. They are at the sharp end of all this discussion. Once again, as in the 1996 Act, they are being asked to shoulder a burden few of them would choose in a society which seems, regrettably, to have few universally accepted moral values in that area of life, if judged by people's practice as reported in the media. The teachers are being asked to do what in a well-ordered society is a sensitive, difficult job which properly belongs to parents and the community as a whole and not simply to the schools.
I am not surprised that their union spokesman, in a kind of knee-jerk reaction, protested at what the Government propose. However, I believe that that reaction sold short the vast majority of teachers. It is suggested by some that you cannot teach the nature of marriage and its importance for family life because your own life style and views may not be supportive of it. Does that then mean that in religious education teachers are unable to teach about any faith other than their own; or that those who teach the English syllabus cannot do that because they do not approve of the values of the author of the set text before them? Of course it does not. Teachers are highly trained professional people.
442
I am very glad that my brother prelate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, is here because, fortuitously, last Friday I spent a day with a group of head teachers and governors in his diocese in West Yorkshire. In view of the publicity, I must adroit that I approached that group, whom I had not met before, with some caution, not to say trepidation, because Yorkshire folk—and I am one of them— speak their mind and speak it bluntly. But I was exhilarated to find that they expressed immense gratitude for what we have tried to achieve.
Again, it is alleged by some that the mention of marriage, which has been the practice of society from time immemorial, may offend some pupils because of their family situation. And I can understand that. But I feel bound to ask whether that means that if there is a child in a class whose parents are doing time for stealing or GBH, the pupils are not taught that theft and physical violence are wrong. Of course it does not. Marriage has been and remains an important part of life. It is a publicly declared, responsible commitment to love and stability by a man and a woman and for the nurture of children. If its nature and importance are not taught, the subject of sex education is not being properly covered in the school.
As the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said on the "Today" programme—which seems to be the flavour of the evening—it is common sense. Education must never be reduced to information, practicalities and techniques. Education is about vision and ideals if it is about anything. I do not share the pessimistic view of some about the ability and sensitivity of our professional teachers, given appropriate guidance, to teach this subject. After all, when your Lordships think about it, it has been done in Church schools, most of which are renowned in this nation in the eyes of parents for the pastoral care they give to individual pupils.
Of course, no legislation is ever perfect, even when scrutinised by your Lordships' House. No such claim can be made in this instance. Naturally, I have spoken with many colleagues, including the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who cannot be here this evening because he is meeting the Primates of the Anglican Communion in Portugal. He and I are both pleased with the focus on marriage as the context for family life and the desire to protect children from inappropriate teaching and materials. But as I said, there are also shared concerns about the vagueness of some of the language. That is a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others seek to address.
In an ideal world, these issues would be expressed more precisely. But in relation to the government amendment, there has been considerable discussion to find the appropriate words to deal with these matters and it is certainly a considerable advance on Section 28, which does not at all protect children in school from the matters about which we are being reminded.
I make no bones about the fact that the amendment does not give us all that we should have liked. As I expected, the discussions with the department have been robust. Personally, I should have liked to see

443
marriage promoted as the setting for sexual intimacy and the nurture of children. But I understand why, in our society, that is a step too far for government, as it certainly was for the previous Conservative administration, in spite of their expressed noble intention to uphold traditional family life.
I was grateful yesterday to receive a letter from David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, commending our efforts and the wording arrived at as "helpful". He points out that what has been missing for much of the debate so far has been an adequate recognition of the fact that head teachers and then staff can deliver sex education programmes only if they have the support of their governing bodies and, crucially, of the parents. We need to remember that. Having given governors and parents responsibilities, we should not patronise them by suggesting that they will act in some undesirable way.
I must ask whether the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other noble Lords are about reasonable steps. Are they workable? The governing bodies are already involved. Parents already have a right of withdrawal of pupils. What more could be asked for?
I am of course extremely grateful for the distinction made between subparagraphs (3)(2)(a) and (b) in the government amendment. It may be too sophisticated an argument for some, but "importance" and "significance" have a different meaning. The two subparagraphs deal succinctly with the serious points raised about moral and legal equivalence between marriage and other relationships. An amendment proposed to improve the government amendment uses the phrase,
"the significance of stability in family relationships".
What does that phrase mean?. What does "family" mean? We must ask whether those words are any clearer than those they seek to replace.
The government amendment includes the points that I made in my original amendment to deal with that prejudice, which has led and is leading to bullying, using the good phrase, "accurate information". It deals also with the need to delay sexual activity—a point which John Nicholson seemed to find amusing on the BBC "Breakfast Show" last Thursday. I doubt that parents of pregnant teenagers would share his amusement.
Subparagraph (3)(2)(e) addresses the concerns of many raised by the repeal of Section 28. It relates to teaching. In the light of the exhibition arranged by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in your Lordships' House, it is the materials which give parents the most grave concern. I am told that the word "inappropriate" is too vague; that it needs definition for governors and head teachers to know what it really means. We are underestimating the good sense of the vast majority of governors and head teachers. We are overlooking the parental right to withdraw children. But, in any case, it is no more vague than the word "promotion" in Section 28.
444
I wish from the bottom of my heart that we could disconnect this debate from that on Section 28 so that we could focus on what is the appropriate task for schools in this area of our national curriculum. That is not possible, but if it were, I firmly believe that the Government's amendment to Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 offers a way forward. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will feel able to give it their support.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, could he help me on one small matter? Is it not right that in his original amendment, he urged that marriage should be promoted as the fundamental building block of society and of family life? How, in those circumstances, can he now live with a new clause which, having referred to the nature of marriage and its importance for family life, in subparagraph (b) completely undermines that statement by lumping together marriage and other stable relationships and which actually declares that a homosexual relationship can be a key building block of society? I simply do not understand how those two approaches can be taken by the same man.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asks a significant question. Much time was taken in framing those particular subparagraphs. The first specifies that pupils should,
"learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for the bringing up of children".
"Importance" is the significant word in that subparagraph. We then go on to learn—in a realistic way—about,
"the significance of marriage and stable relationships",
within community and society. The noble Lord brought in the word "homosexual", but the amendment did not bring in that word. That is his way of looking at the matter, not necessarily mine. As I was accused of saying on the "Today" programme, stable relationships exist and their significance is obvious over and against promiscuous and unstable relationships. I am therefore able to live with the amendment, although in a perfect world—the world for which I plead with all my heart—it would not be so.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I have a simple question. There have been rumours in the Church papers that the right reverend Prelate does not represent the views of the whole Board of Education. Was there a total discussion of the matter by the whole Board of Education before the right reverend Prelate entered into discussion with the Government?
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, there has been a total discussion in the way referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. It took place, at great length, last Tuesday afternoon. All members of the board knew that it was to be on the agenda. It was not possible to have such a discussion before, but I took the opportunity of having a full discussion with the Council of the National Society, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will know, is a key Anglican

445
body for the promotion of education in our schools. Our cycle of meetings does not always allow us to react to government business in the way that we might like to, but on Tuesday afternoon there was a full debate. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that the board agreed to reaffirm the principles on which we have been working in these discussions.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether it might be to your Lordships' convenience if I were to make my few remarks. I have tabled a number of amendments. It might be to the convenience of the House to have one complete debate to cover all the amendments. It might be helpful if I were to refer to those now.
A noble Lord: No, it would not be helpful.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord says that it is not helpful, but I believe that some noble Lords would find it helpful.
I have tabled Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14 and 18. Although I feel strongly about some of them, I do not propose to press them because that might muddy the waters of what we are trying to do. Amendment No. 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is a struggle to meet the wishes of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. He himself admitted that he did not obtain all that he wanted. That means that what we are discussing is the Government's overriding view. The Government, therefore, will not be able to say that they had the approval of the Churches for their amendment. It was surprising that, when there was concern, the discussions did lot include my noble friends Lady Young or Lady Blatch in order to try to find a common course.
I do not know whether it is possible to find a common course because line 15 of Amendment No. 7—which has been referred to—states that people must learn,
"the significance of marriage and stable relationships",
and that they are the building blocks of society. What is meant by "stable relationships"? Is two weeks a stable relationship? Or two months? Or nine months? Or two years? Nowhere is the definition of "a stable relationship" covered. Does it include homosexual relationships? The right reverend Prelate said that the word "homosexual" was the word of my noble friend Lord Waddington and not of the right reverend Prelate, but the fact is that this is a statute. The statute, when it is read, makes it perfectly clear that that provision can cover homosexual relationships.
Two lesbians were apparently getting married today. It was all in the newspapers. Is that supposed to be a good thing? The amendment equates marriage with homosexual relationships and other relationships. I am bound to say that I am amazed that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn fell for that. The Church has always taught that homosexuality is wrong, that fornication is wrong and that adultery is wrong. That does not mean to say that none of it happens. Of
446
course it happens; it happens all the time all over the place. But the fact is that the Church should then turn around and help those people. But one does not actually put it in the statute that those are matters about which one should teach children. That is a great mistake.
I hope, as my noble friend Lord Pilkington requested, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn is not speaking for the Church of England. I am a member of the Church of England; it is a church which I admire greatly. But if these are the kinds of conditions which the Church of England feels it appropriate to teach children, I believe that it is wrong. I am amazed also that it is necessary to produce a vast great document—the guidelines. People then have to read that huge great document before they can instruct children. Of course, the amendment itself is long. The trouble with both is that the more that is put in, the more important becomes what is not put in.
With this amendment and guidance we are in danger of trying to cover every item. In 1987 there was pretty strong guidance saying:
"There is no place in any school in any circumstances for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour, which presents it as the 'norm', or which encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils".
That is clear and robust stuff. A year later it proved necessary to introduce Section 28. In view of the criticism that that section received, let us look at what it says:
"A local authority shall not

(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

This amendment does not say that, and it is a huge weakening of the position. I believe that the Government are making a great mistake.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to my amendments. Amendment No. 10 suggests that we leave out the words "and stable relationships", for the reasons I have already given. I say to the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms that it is a pity that the amendment was not recommitted. He mentioned that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was not tabled until last night. But my amendments were tabled some days ago. The amendment should have been recommitted because it creates a precedent and it should be considered properly.
Amendment No. 11 suggests that we leave out the words,
"key building blocks of community".
That is a perfectly terrible phrase. It is typical Civil Service jargon. During the passage of the House of Lords Act I suggested that the word "a" might be replaced by the word "an" about which there was a fearful hoo-ha. Later, in a television programme the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thought that the word "an" was correct, as did the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General. However, the

447
word "a" was used by the parliamentary draftsman. I do not know whether the parliamentary draftsman was on holiday when this Bill was written, but to put the phrase "building blocks" into a statute is perfectly terrible. It is bad English.
For that reason my Amendment No. 14 states:
"Guidance under subsection (1),

(a) must be cohesive and coherent;

(b) must be transparent and consistent;

(c) should underpin the value of family life and overarch other aspects of family teaching; and

(d) must be undertaken in an efficient and effective manner".

All those words are Civil Service jargon that appears all over the place, particularly out of the mouths of Ministers, whichever party is in power. Whenever any noble Lord hears a Minister talk about "coherent" and "cohesive" he knows that it is like pressing button "B". Out comes all sorts of stuff. That lowers values. I believe that "building blocks" is a bad phrase to use.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to leave out the words,
"learn to respect themselves and others".
In my view those words can be omitted because that is part of education.
Amendment No. 15 seeks to leave out the words,
"and of society".
I do not understand how one can promote spiritual, mental and physical development of society, although such matters can be promoted in relation to individuals.
A number of things have been said about Section 28. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that it did not work properly because it referred only to local authorities. Amendment No. 18 is written in the same words to ensure that it refers to education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers. If Section 28 in its present form does not work, under that amendment it would work, as it covers the words used in the statute.
I believe that the Government are making a great mistake in regard to this matter, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with my noble friend Lady Young.
6 p.m.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I warmly welcome the attempt by the Government to amend this matter and to provide a strong framework within which sex education can take place. I believe that teachers and governing bodies will be immensely grateful.
I affirm much of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said. I shall not repeat what he has said. I shall content myself with making one or two points about the amendments currently before the House.
Love, fidelity, stability and joy are not limited to those who have entered into the holy state of matrimony. Such qualities can also be found within
448
other relationships. Neither are those values guaranteed by the state of matrimony. Marriage can be abusive and unstable.
I hope we do not go down the road of taking out the reference to stable relationships. That phrase can be taken to mean same-sex relationships. I emphasise that I speak for myself and not as a representative of any Church, but I am delighted to affirm the situation of those of homosexual orientation who manage, in today's society, to achieve stable, loving and mutually respectful relationships that can be of benefit to the society in which they live. Indeed, some people in those relationships have been judged worthy under British law of being fit parents to adopt children. Stable relationships are not limited to same-sex relationships. Society ought to be grateful to a whole host of stable relationships.
Today, cohabitation is acceptable in many societies, sometimes as a precursor to marriage or as a lifestyle for those who have found that marriage, in its unstable forms, has given them such a bad experience that they cannot bring themselves to enter into it again.
However, there are other relationships. A duty of sex education is to give some thought to relationships that are not sexual at all but have been honoured in our society. I refer to relationships of a celibate nature, perhaps of two sisters living together, or indeed friendships which seem to have been so devalued as not to be considered a building block of our society. Such relationships are very real for those who cannot or will not enter into a marriage relationship.
Something has been said about the equivalence of putting marriage and stable relationships in the same sentence as the phrase "key building blocks of community". Forgive me, but my house is brick, cement, wood, glass and other materials and it is the richer because of all those elements. Society is built on many different foundations, one of which is marriage. But there are others. We owe it to our children to give them some indication of the fact that if marriage is not possible for them, they may still achieve the values of stability, fidelity and integrity in their lives.
Turning to Amendment No. 13, I believe that I am a reasonable person, although I suspect that I may not agree entirely with the noble Baroness in whose name the amendment stands. I believe that the best way to protect our children is to prohibit material that is judged to be inappropriate by governors, teachers and parents in our schools. However, that does not mean that our children can be protected from it outside school. I believe that the role of education is to give our children the tools with which they can judge whether material is appropriate, life-enhancing and of value. In order to do that, it is sometimes necessary to allow them to see other things so as to give them the ability to make those judgments for themselves.
The noble Earl mentioned the detailed guidance currently being proposed. It has been put out for consultation in many different quarters. I warmly welcome this. If noble Lords could see the guidance given to teachers on how to teach other aspects of the curriculum, they would see that this is modest in the

449
extreme. Nevertheless, teachers value both the protection offered by knowing what the department feels is appropriate for them to teach and also the permission. As currently proposed, the guidelines go some way towards helping in the essential discussion of what is right and proper to teach in the classroom.
I do hope that this amendment can be passed today. It will greatly help the proper teaching of sex education within our schools. It will promote the right thinking, good judgment and integrity of living that our children deserve.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as I listen to these deeply felt speeches, I recall what was said by Abraham Lincoln in the greatest of all his speeches at the end of the American Civil War:
"Both prayed to the same God, but the prayers of both could not be answered".
I speak as someone who tries to follow Christian principles. There are plenty of better Christians in the Ho use today, including the right reverend Prelate, and, although he is not here today, there is Archbishop Nichols from my own Catholic Church, who was quoted earlier.
I am a loyal, almost—but not quite—obsequious member of the Labour Party. I am pretty sure that I have voted for the Labour Party in this House more than anyone else in the history of the world. Certainly, I was pushing my way through the Lobby before the present Prime Minister was born. I am a loyal supporter, but when all is said and done, one cannot rely only on the instructions of a Whip where matters of conscience are involved. Although I shall not go into the details now, never before have we been asked to obey the Whip on a matter of conscience of this kind.
Leaving that aside, we all have to follow our own consciences. When in 1935 George Lansbury referred to his conscience at the Labour Party Conference, Ernie Bevin replied that, "I am not going to have George Lansbury hawking his conscience all around Europe". For that reason, it is not wise to bring up the matter of one's own conscience. Nevertheless, on this occasion I regret that I must do so.
I could never forgive myself if I voted for an amendment which appeared to put relationships outside marriage nearly on an equal footing with that of marriage. At any rate, those relationships will be given an official status which I believe would be quite deplorable. I shall not again offer the House my views on homosexuality. The House has heard them more than once. Last Wednesday, I visited a homosexual serving 15 years for buggery. Shortly, I shall have my hand on his shoulder when he is accepted into the Catholic Church. No one can call me a homophobe.
Leaving aside the matter of homosexuality, I shall look simply at the phrase in the Government's amendment about stable relationships. The amendment puts stable relationships outside marriage almost on the same footing as marriage. That would be a wicked thing to do. That is my personal view, not shared by everyone, but shared by some.
450
I shall finish my contribution by recalling the lines of a poet writing at the end of the last century:
"I trod the road to hell,
But there were things I could not sell
And did not sell".
If I voted for the amendment as it stands without any further correction, I would be betraying myself. That may not matter very much, but I would also be betraying our children for generations to come. I would find that quite impossible.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I do not find that this amendment gives me everything I want. If I had been a dictator—which, thank God, I am not—my guidelines would have been shaped much more along the lines of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson. But this amendment includes nothing with which I cannot live.
I recognise that I live in a democracy. I live in a diverse society, a society in which we must draft such matters so that they will be acceptable to a very wide variety of people. For me, the Government's amendment passes that test. I should like to congratulate the Government on their drafting and the right reverend Prelate and his Roman Catholic colleagues on demonstrating drafting skills that I do not think I have seen since the 39 Articles.
When this subject was last before noble Lords, I compared what the right reverend Prelate was doing with attempts being made in the 1540s to draft a formula for bringing together Roman Catholics and Protestants. Over the past 40 years, the division that has grown up among us on matters of sexual morals is as profound as that which grew up in the 16th century on matters of theology. I believe that they are as difficult to reconcile, and they are quite as much differences of principle.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is a fair and generous person. I shall ask her to recognise—as I think she will—that moral principle is common to both sides in this argument. The noble Baroness speaks to her moral principles and I speak to mine. We are both doing our best according to our lights. I believe that the protection of children is common to both sides. I accept that the noble Baroness believes that she speaks in support of the protection of children. However, so do I. One of us is probably wrong. Which of us it is will be a matter, in the short term, for the House to decide.
Both of us enjoy a very substantial amount of support in the country as a whole. I am not entering into arguments about opinion polls, which are diverse. However, what I will say is that I believe that each of us enjoys the support of at least a blocking third, without which a policy cannot effectively be put into execution.
We are not in the same situation here as we were when we were arguing in the debate on the age of consent. When there is so much division about a question of criminal prohibition, I believe that the

451
burden of proof argument applies: when in doubt, don't. However, this matter is different because we do have a compulsion to be educated.
I know that there is the option of independent schools, to which, curiously, none of this applies. It is also a curiosity that 75 per cent of those who voted to retain Section 28 were from independent schools that were not at any time subject to the provision. However, for most us—and that includes almost everyone in a public service profession—independent schools are not open to us for purely financial reasons. If independent schools are not an option, and if we regard withdrawal from sex education classes as a very inadequate substitute, then we must have, if at all possible, some kind of modus vivendi that is acceptable to people on both sides of the argument.
In fact, we must have fudge. Now one might say of fudge what Churchill said of democracy; that is, that it is the worst system except for all the others. I learnt that as an historian as well as a politician by reading about this country tearing itself apart for 18 years in order to reach, at the end of it, a settlement which, with good will, it could perfectly well have had before all the trouble started. So fudge is a necessary confection.
There is nothing in the amendment with which I cannot live. I am not against marriage. I am proud to be married. I am ready to join with anyone in the praise of marriage. What I am against is monopoly. When I look at the phrase, "stable relationships", whose preservation is absolutely crucial to me, the first thing I think of is my two sisters-in-law, one of whom sadly is recently dead. They lived with men as partners without a ceremony of marriage. When one is married one learns to recognise members of the married trade union. Those two people belonged to it quite as completely as I can ever claim to do myself. Were I to go home and report to my wife that I had voted for an amendment which made her morally superior to her sisters, I do not believe that I would be engaged in the promotion of marriage.
Equally, I remember a divorced single parent with a daughter describing to me when she and her daughter were listening to Mr Michael Portillo's famous fringe meeting on single parents in 1993. Her daughter turned to her and said, "But mum, we are a family, aren't we?". I believe the answer to that question should have been yes.
If I look for a definition of a "family", I turn to St. Augustine's definition of "the state": "an assemblage of reasonable beings bound together by a common agreement as to the object of their love". Does that include homosexuals? The government amendment says nothing on this one way or the other. I am perfectly content to accept that it does. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, chooses to interpret it to say it does not, she is free to do that also. The right reverend Prelates will understand what I mean about the drafting of the 39 articles!
So this is something with which we can live. And if we cannot live with it, I do not know where we go from there. I have wondered over the past weeks whether it
452
would be a way out of the dilemma to end sex education in schools. But I listened at my party conference to a powerful speech about Aids in Africa, describing how people literally do die of ignorance. I cannot go down that road though I have been tempted by it. If we cannot go down that road and we cannot do without a system of state education, the only way out is to accept the government amendment or something vaguely similar to it. There are many aspects of the amendment I do not like, but I shall be happy to support it.
Lord Moran: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words to explain why as a Cross Bencher I have put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
When we discussed in Committee on 7th February this question of the Local Government Bill, guidelines had not been produced. I said that I felt that Mr Blunkett was clearly doing his utmost, though I wondered whether when the guidelines appeared they would be worthy in a way that was acceptable to most parents, different faiths and the public as a whole. Unfortunately, my doubts proved right.
When the guidelines came out, extraordinarily we found that there was a reaction from two major teaching unions denouncing them and saying that teachers would ignore them. That was extremely unfortunate. It is a great shame that they have come out in some degree as defective. Unfortunately, the right reverend Prelate said nothing to us while he was having his consultations and, according to the press, the Chief Rabbi was not consulted, nor was the Muslim community. That was a great pity.
When I say that the government amendment is defective, I must add that I feel it contains some good aspects. It is probable that Mr Blunkett, who I believe is on the side of the angels, is responsible for most of what is good in it, particularly the emphasis on the importance of marriage. But there are three major defects that I see in the amendment: first, the reference to "stable relationships". The Christian Institute consultative QC confirmed that that phrase includes homosexual unions. Indeed, it would seem to me to include any union outside marriage. For example, necrophiliacs, transvestites and sado-masochists who have been living together for some years might argue that they are in stable relationships and may be surprised to find that they are regarded by the Government as forming,
"key building blocks of community and society".
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that necrophiliacs have relationships?
Lord Moran: My Lords, I believe the noble Earl knows more about that than I do.
That is the first and far and away the most serious defect in the government amendment. The second is the reference to "inappropriate teaching". We know what that means, but the word "inappropriate" is extraordinarily vague. What I think is inappropriate

453
may not he thought to be inappropriate by someone else. It can mean anything to any number of people and should not appear in an Act of Parliament.
The third defect is the reference to,
"The Secretary of State may at any time revise his guidance".
That is entirely wrong. Another Secretary of State for Education may arrive with quite different views and there is no stability at all. Our amendment requires Parliament to look at the guidance, and that is much better.
There have been references in the debate to the health aspect and to the activities of health promotion services. That is not a matter for this Bill, nor indeed for the Local Government Bill. But it needs to be addressed and I hope that the Government will look at it. There may be urgent need for guidelines to health authorities. They have been, if not producing them themselves, at any rate providing public funds for some of this appalling material that we have all seen.
I make one reference to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I sympathise with him about "building blocks". We are responsible for including the phrase in Amendment No. 8. However, I hope he will concede that we meant well. It is not a phrase that I should like to see too often in statute.
Privileged people, beginning with the Prime Minister, can send their children to schools they choose very carefully and where the "inappropriate teaching" of these matters is inconceivable. But for those who are not privileged, there is a real risk. I come from Wales win ere we are still in shock over the appalling story of the abuse of children in care. These are, largely, the children of underprivileged parents and they are entitled to our protection. Therefore, defective guidance to teachers, allowing a small minority of teachers to promote homosexuality in schools, will endanger these children and put them at risk. I do not think that we should do that.
When my colleagues on the Cross Benches and, indeed, all Members of the House consider the vote on this matter, I should like them to compare the two texts; namely, the Government's Amendment No. 7 as it stands, and the government amendment as it would be if our amendments were accepted. I ask them to search their consciences when considering those two alternatives and decide what would be best for their children and grandchildren to be taught. Having decided between the two what is best, I urge them to vote accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I hope that the House warmly welcomes the close, careful and sustained collaboration between the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England Board of Education, represented especially by their chairmen, Archbishop Vincent Nichols and my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, that has paved t le way for this amendment. I warmly welcome, too, the Government's preparedness to listen to them and to work closely with them. The prominence given to subsection (2)(a) of new Section
454
403A (to the 1996 Act) in the Minister's amendment, is especially welcome. I shall be looking for confirmation in her reply to this debate that this priority for the promotion of marriage really is, in the Government's intention, the key to this amendment; and that, like the lettering in a stick of rock, it will appear as such throughout the draft guidance once it has been revised. I shall suggest in a moment that this is not the case in its present form.
With Marianne Talbot in her very important article in last Sunday's Observer, I do riot underestimate what a critically important and very demanding change of direction this is, not only for the Government but also throughout our society at this juncture. So I profoundly hope that we shall now see the Government listening in every other area of policy, too, to the clear and persuasive case made by the Churches, by representatives of other faiths and by many others for giving priority to marriage.
There is much both in the amendment introduced by the Minister this afternoon, and in the draft guidance which accompanies it, that I warmly welcome. I have already mentioned subsection (2)(a). I also have in mind subsections (2)(c), (2)(d) and (4)(b) of the Government's amendment and the sensitive and sensible material in the guidance, to which the Minister gave much excellent space in her introductory speech, which explicates these and some of the other subsections. I include in what I welcome as being most important those elements emphasising the unacceptability of bullying (paragraph 1.32) and that encouraging care that there should be,
"no stigmatisation of children based on their home circumstances".
In their statement released a week ago welcoming the amendment now before us, Archbishop Nichols and my brother, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, described it as going,
"a long way to meet the concerns we have expressed to the Secretary of State".
They noted, as I have just done, with warm appreciation that it represents, as they put it,
"a significant development in Government thinking".
They went on to say:
"One of our concerns as been that, if Section 28 is to be repealed, alternative enforceable safeguards should he in place to ensure that school children are protected from inappropriate teaching and materials".
Here is clear encouragement, not just to those who sit on these Benches but to the House as a whole, to consider the extent to which the noble Baroness's amendment does indeed meet concerns of this kind, which I share. My judgment is that it does not vet sufficiently do so. As my right reverend friend put it, there are some things that could be put more precisely.
I recognise, of course, his other and powerful point—or another of his powerful points—that what is put into law through your Lordships' House, and ultimately the other place, has to be workable. I also appreciate the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—he is not at present in his place, but I am sure

455
that he will return later—about the inevitability of a significant element of "fudge". But there is fudge and fudge; it is just a question of its character.
It is surely the logic of subsection (2)(a), as well as perhaps—here I am obviously guessing, but, I think, with some justification—the prime concern of Archbishop Nichols and of my right reverend friend that, in the giving of sex education in maintained schools, marriage should be carefully distinguished from other couple relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual and however stable. But I also recognise the point made by the Minister and other speakers that other relationships exist which have significant value to the partners, to children and to society because they are stable.
Perhaps I may, again, take up a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It seems to me that it is not a question of one individual being morally superior to another. The question is that of the state in which they are living; it is not a matter of judging one individual as being morally superior to another. But notwithstanding all that has been said so far in the debate, I still find that subsection (2)(b) with its placing together of "marriage and stable relationships" in a single run of words, the consistent repeating of this conjunction at point after point in the draft guidance and the explicit justification for that position in paragraph 5 (on page two of the guidance), seem fatally to undermine the initial clarity established in subsection (2)(a) of the Government's amendment.
Nor am I yet convinced by some of the remarks that have been made in justification of the word "inappropriate". The only attempts to explicate that word that I found in the draft guidance seem to me, again, to have the effect of undermining the pivotal subsection (2)(a). For example, how can there be taught a priority for marriage if paragraph 1.32 of the draft guidance says that,
"there should be no direct promotion of sexual orientation"?
That phrase reappears twice again in the guidance.
There are also surprising omissions in the draft guidance, fine as it is in very many of its parts. There is no mention in paragraph 10 on page three of spiritual values among the others that are noted at length. There is no mention of the Churches, or of other faith communities, among the allies and friends that may be looked to in paragraphs 12 and 6.1; and there is no mention of marriage in either paragraphs 1.18 or 3.5 in both of which it should surely be present. If I may repeat the image, much of the stick of rock seems so far to have missed out on its lettering.
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 1.6 on page six of the draft guidance, which speaks as if the Government had come to assume that it is only schools of a "particular religious ethos" that,
"may choose to reflect that ethos in their sex and relationship education policy".
These seem to me to amount to serious deficiencies in the Minister's amendment and in the draft guidance. Even though this is not primarily what we are talking
456
about, it is there in the wings, as other noble Lords have recognised. It is fair to say that they certainly do not persuade me to agree to the repeal of what my right reverend friend the Bishop of Lichfield described on February 7th as the "stabilising bench-mark" of Section 28, inadequate as it is not only in some of the detail of its wording but also in its scope. In my judgment either it, or a successor with improved wording and an eye also on the Human Rights Act, needs to continue to apply not only to local authorities—because they continue to have responsibility for work with children and young people outside schools—to PSHE advisory services, and to libraries, but also to health authorities and trusts, and to the health promotion units, at which, for instance, the draft guidance looks in paragraph 12 on page 4.
Lastly, I note that many of the observations that I have made are addressed in amendments before us. I shall listen very carefully, with many others outside your Lordships' House as well as in it, and of faiths other than mine or of none, to the Minister's replies to amendments and then to the debate as a whole. I shall listen especially to hear the extent to which the so welcome subsection (2)(a) really is the governing thread of all that this amendment and this draft guidance are designed to put in place.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am puzzled as to why those who support the repeal of Section 28 are deemed by the Government to be entirely rational or sensible, but those who oppose the repeal of Section 28 are somehow being extremist and distorting the facts.
My noble friend Lord Pilkington asked about the views of the Board of Education. Only today I received a letter from a member of that board, Mr Locke, who was present at the relevant meeting. He refers to a letter from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn of 14th March. Mr Locke states that the board welcomed the content of the Bishop's letter which emphasised,
"marriage, non-equivalence and inappropriate teaching".
Mr Locke's letter states,
"However, several of us were particularly concerned with the implications of HMG's amendment as now tabled. While marriage would be affirmed as a key social building block, so also would other stable (for how long? heterosexual? homosexual?) relationships. Ambiguity makes for bad law … I have spoken briefly today to Baroness Young, who has kindly faxed me a copy of the amendments which she has tabled. In my personal judgment, all of them would accord with the Board's affirmations. Her interrelated Amendments I and 2 seem to me particularly crucial. Not only are the importance of marriage and the nonequivalence of other relationships at the heart of where the Board of Education stands".
I believe that the Board of Education is supportive of my noble friend's amendments.
The letter of the National Association of Head Teachers was quoted. It is not long since David Hart, the head of the National Association of Head Teachers, said, as regards Section 28, that he was
"not convinced there were reasons for repealing it. He added: 'The Government needs to be very clear why it is going down this road. Section 28 has not caused difficulties but has constituted a protection which, by and large, has been welcomed'".

457
The right reverend Prelate also laid great store by parental rights of withdrawal. I was responsible for that being on the statute book at all. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, has produced written material advising teachers how they can circumvent the right of parents to withdraw their children by making sure that sex education is taught through a number of subjects, which makes it nearly impossible for parents to exercise that right. I do not believe that the Government's amendment—even amended by our amendments—is a substitute for the repeal of Section 28. The fight will continue.
However, there is a bafflement not just on these Benches but among Labour Members of both Houses and among the public as to why the Government are preoccupied, indeed, obsessive, about the repeal of Section 28. One clue could be the almost ecstatic support from gay activists. It is no surprise that the Government have elicited whoops of delight from Stonewall and ether gay activists. The amendment in its present form is unacceptable. There should be a distinction between marriage and any other stable relationships as a cornerstone of the community.
The Prime Minister, speaking in Scotland with an air of indignation ahead of the Ayr by-election, accused the media and campaigning groups of whipping up gay propaganda. He said on that occasion,
"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?—homosexua l role playing in school. 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".
However, page 16 of the Government's guidance states,
"Teachers can avoid embarrassment and protect pupils' privacy by always depersonalising discussions. For example, role play can be used to help pupils 'act out' situations".
Role playing is advocated and yet the Prime Minister says that there will be no such role playing.
I refer to the teaching pack which was prepared for schools in the Avon area. It opens with the words,
"challenging heterosexism and developing discussion on issues of sexuality in the classroom".
Schoolchildren are invited in that document to act out roles including those of a Catholic priest, a nun, a disabled heterosexual man, a bisexual granny, a married man who was "done for cottaging", a married woman who has sex with other women in secret, a black disabled lesbian who is in a wheelchair, a white bisexual man, a transvestite cabaret artist and a male to female transgendered person. Those who produced that teaching pack have to be perverted to advocate inviting young children to act out such roles.
The one point on which I agree with the Prime Minister is that this kind of role playing in schools is nonsense. However, the difference between us is that I believe those words; I am not saying them simply to win a by-election in Ayr.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that noble Lords do not like it, but that is what happened.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw any accusation that we do not believe our words; I do not think that a civilised parliamentary debate can usefully be conducted on that basis?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I made the distinction between my saying that I thought role playing should not take place on that basis and the Prime Minister also saying that it should not take place on that basis. However, the Prime Minister is responsible for putting his name, along with noble Lords opposite, to guidance advocating that such role play should take place in our schools.
Public surveys north and south of the Border confirm that Section 28 has worked and should be kept. Childhood should be nurtured and cherished and not be made subject to the distorted message of much of the material that would surely circulate if Section 28 was repealed. My noble friend's amendments strengthen the Government's amendment by strengthening the role of marriage, protecting children from inappropriate teaching materials—there are proper tests now in the amendment to make that judgment—and give parents and governors not just the right they have at the moment but a strengthened right not only to be concerned about sex education in schools but also to have a statutory right over control of the materials and the curriculum arrangements for sex education in schools and its teaching. I believe that that is an important extension.
The people of Ayr have spoken on this matter. I hope that noble Lords will follow my noble friend into the Division Lobby tonight; she can certainly count on my support. Meanwhile, as I said earlier, whether or not the amendment is amended, the fight to retain Section 28 on the statute book will continue.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, as I rather think she called into question my integrity with regard to the meeting of the Board of Education, does she accept that Mr Locke was one member of that board and that the board expressed a whole range of opinions, and that Mr Locke did not feel able to press at that meeting the kind of amendment referred to in his letter? We ought to get the record straight. Just as the Churches have a range of opinions about this matter, so, too, I believe, does the Conservative Party. It is quite inappropriate to suggest on the strength of that letter that the Board of Education was united behind what Mr Locke has written.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did not and would not call the integrity of the right reverend Prelate into question, nor that of Mr Locke. I spoke to Mr Locke ahead of the meeting. As he went to that meeting,

459
Mr Locke was very concerned. He had not had sight of our amendments—we were still drafting them—but we gave him an idea of what we were going to do. Mr Locke now says that our amendments accord with the board's affirmations. I have put the letter away now, but the three key issues—including marriage and non-equivalence, which I believe is crucial to this—were affirmed by the right reverend Prelate. But the right reverend Prelate is, I believe, now opposing my noble friend and agreeing that equivalence should be accepted.
Lord Alli: My Lords, six weeks ago in this Chamber we debated at length the proposal to abolish Section 28. At the time I made clear my strong view that Section 28 should go. I said then, as I say now, that it cannot be right to enshrine in law personal prejudice or to disguise it as reason. It is from that prejudice that intolerance, hatred and, ultimately, persecution come. I am opposed to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because once again they seek to enshrine that prejudice into legislation. Their amendments are old-fashioned, divisive and, I believe, homophobic.
In the debate on Section 28, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers said:
"Until about 10 years ago I had never heard of the word "homophobic". If you do not like something you are given a really nasty name like "homophobic".—[Official Report, 7/2/00; col. 428.]
I should say to the noble Earl that up until about 10 years ago I, too, had not heard the term "homophobic", but I did feel its effects on many occasions in my life—and, dare I say it, sometimes in your Lordships' House. The noble Earl may well think that if we did not have a name for homophobia it would not exist. But exist it does—and it has found a new home in the clutch of amendments that we are discussing today. The noble Earl said that he condemned bullying whatever its causes. I believe that.
At the end of the debate on Section 28 the House was dramatically polarised. However, in the midst of fixed and inflexible views, the contributions of some noble Lords stood out. From the Benches opposite, I think of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley; from the Cross-Benches, the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow; from the Liberal Democrat Benches the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; and there were countless contributions from my own Benches, as well as the brave intervention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. Their contributions had in common an overwhelming desire to unite the House; to find a way to reflect how society has moved on rather than to live out the old doctrines of the past. I am glad to say that the spirit of their contributions has been incorporated in the Government amendment which has been tabled today.
I understand that the amendment will not please every noble Lord. However, my plea is that we go forward with the amendment, which has been built on
460
the broadest coalition of opinion and which seeks to unite rather than divide. I am sure that many noble Lords will wish to pay tribute to those who have worked together over the past few weeks to try to achieve consensus in this difficult field. I think particularly of the Government and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment; the Churches and church leaders; the educationalists and the teachers; the charities and the voluntary organisations.
I can see the fingerprints of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, all over the amendments, and I know she and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not be satisfied with anything less than outright victory. But this is not a war: there are no enemies; there are no battlefields. The debate is about how we teach our children.
When I spoke in last month's debate, there were many supportive words from colleagues, but I felt myself very much alone. As a gay man, I sat here and heard speeches of pure prejudice. Some noble Lords may not have been in the House for the entirety of the debate and may have missed some of the speeches. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that homosexuality can have terrible and tragic results and that he was no enemy of homosexuals.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, did the noble Lord say that I said I was an enemy of homosexuals?
Lord Alli: No, my Lords, I did not. I said that the noble Earl said he was no enemy of homosexuals but that when they break the Christian rules they have to be penalised. The noble Baroness said again today that there can be no moral equivalence between homosexuals and heterosexuals. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that not all abuse was carried out by homosexuals, but that a good deal of it was.
But today is very different—I do not feel so alone. The noble Baroness and her followers are no longer attacking only me, they are attacking everyone who lives outside her idealised model of a happily married family. Standing side by side with me today are not only the 3 million gay men and women who do not fit into her model, but we are joined by the 1 million divorced or separated people who do not fit into her model; the 4 million widows and widowers who do not fit into her model; the 2 million co-habiting couples who do not fit into her model—and the millions of children that they are successfully bringing up. So I hope that the noble Baroness and her followers will explain to them, in the same way as they have explained to me, why they are not morally equivalent to her. More importantly, I hope that she will explain why their children are to be taught that their parents are immoral.
The Government's amendment before us today has been developed in an inclusive rather than exclusive way. It sets out important objectives for sex education in schools. The amendment and its accompanying guidelines will ensure that no child, from whatever background, should feel that their family is of less worth than any other; that no child, whatever their

461
sexuality, should feel that they are less equal than others; and that no teacher should feel unable to support any pupil from coming to terms with his or her sexuality.
Surely the right way to go forward is by uniting, not dividing; by combining morality with tolerance. I ask the House to reject the noble Baroness's amendments and to support the Government amendment. All we ask for is tolerance and not prejudice.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, there is much in what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said. As someone who has worked with children, on and off, for 13 years, and who was taught in a primary school near here, I remember a 10 year-old boy putting his hand up all the time and the teacher telling him not to. I noticed he was very pleased to live me presents. I did not have to be told that he did not have a father.
When we talk about the key building blocks and the best way to bring up children, is that not ultimately what marriage is for? Ideally, children should have two parents. They cannot always have that, but that is the best upbringing for children. I say that not only from my own expel fence but from talking to many professionals in that area.
I am concerned about the clarity of Clause 2(a) and 2(b), as was the right reverend Prelate. Does the Minister accept that we should aspire to a marital relationship where children have security and an ability to grow up with confidence and a feeling of independence? Not everyone achieves this, but surely we must try to help others to see that that is very important if they wish their children to grow up in the best possible way.
7 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in Committee on the Local Government Bill, I am afraid that I irritated the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, by referring to the European Convention on Human Rights. I shall briefly irritate them, and others, again by doing so now, and for a very simple reason. Unfortunately, we do not yet have in this House a human rights committee like the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee to advise us before we exercise our right to vote about the implications of what we do under the human rights convention.
I said during the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill that I thought that Section 28 as it stood breached the European Convention on Human Rights in several fairly obvious ways. I asked the Minister to confirm that. I did not receive confirmation, and I make no complaint about that. But subsequently, two of my colleagues, David Pannick QC and Helen Mountfield, gave an opinion which made clear their view that there were clear breaches of the human rights convention in Section 28.
Finally, when the Secretary of State had to decide, under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, whether to give a statement of compatibility for the Local Government Bill, for the first time a Minister was
462
advised that he could not give a statement of compatibility. Why was that? I take it that the reason why the Secretary of State stated on the face of the Bill that in his view he could not say the Bill was compatible was that it would breach the convention. I hope that the Minister, in replying, will clarify and confirm that view.
If that is correct, the Government have been extremely sensible. They have enabled us to solve the problem by producing the guidance that was lacking when we debated this issue on 7th February and by replacing Section 28 with a provision that offers a fair compromise given the passionately held views on all sides of the House. I very much hope that we shall remember the wise words of Judge Learned Hand, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, frequently reminds me: that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right. The point about the government amendment is that it reconciles two camps, each of which is fairly sure that it is right, in an honourable compromise. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a little difficult. My noble friend Lord Stoddart has his name to some of the amendments. Also, I think the sense of the House is that we are beginning to move towards the end of the debate. Perhaps we can hear three more BackBenchers, not all from one side, and then hear from the Liberal Front Bench and the Minister.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, I have put my name to five of the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Like my noble friend Lord Longford, I very much regret that this has become a whipped matter. I used to be obsequious about supporting Whips but I am no longer quite as obsequious as my noble friend.
It really is unfortunate that the Government consulted the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and certain other people but did not consult the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about their amendment. I simply cannot understand that, bearing in mind that the noble Baroness has been the most steadfast leader of the campaign to prevent the promotion of homosexuality among children. Why was she not consulted? We are entitled to an answer. Indeed, it was the failure to consult that persuaded me to add my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, because I think that she has been badly treated.
It is also deplorable that the government amendment has been brought forward at this late stage. I repeat a point that had been made, but my noble friend appeared to suggest that he would have

463
supported recommitment if had he understood that that was what many people wanted. He is shaking his head, but it is possible for a manuscript amendment to be moved even at this stage, is it not? Perhaps he would support that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, not at Third Reading.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I stand corrected by my noble friend. So we cannot have a proper discussion—a Committee-type discussion—of the government amendment and the amendments to it, as they deserve. We should not be discussing this important matter in the straitjacket of a Third Reading debate.
The new amendment and guidelines do not deal adequately with the complicated moral and personal issues involved in sex education. Like other speakers, I feel very sorry for the teachers who will have to implement these measures. Whatever they do will be seen to be wrong by someone; they will be made scapegoats if things go wrong and government policy is seen to fail. That is most unfortunate. The teachers' unions ought to have made that plain to the Government when the amendment was being prepared.
In that connection, have the teachers been properly consulted about the new guidelines? And what about parents, whose views should be paramount? How have they been consulted? Have they been consulted at all? There is an increasing tendency to ignore parents as the state seems to take on an ever-increasing role in the upbringing of children which properly belongs to parents.
What we never seem to do is take a good, hard look at whether compulsory sex education in schools has delivered what was intended. We merely say that it is a good thing, and go on saying that, even when it has proved to be a bad thing. The aims of the Education Act 1993, the consolidation Act, were, on the face of it, reasonable. But what has turned out in practice is not what we were led to expect.
For example, the numbers of single-parent families have risen by 230,000 since 1992. The number of conceptions among under-16s rose from 7,200 in 1992 to 8,900 in 1996. The number of conceptions among under-14s rose from 363 in 1992 to 451 in 1996. As for marriage, between 1992 and 1997 the number of marriages fell by 10 per cent, while the figure for divorce fell by only 2 per cent. So compulsory sex education has not done much to stabilise, let alone promote, marriages; and the divorce rate continues to rise inexorably—the reverse of what was intended in the legislation.
There is more promiscuity, less sexual morality, less marriage, more divorce, more single mothers, more under-16 pregnancies and more child pregnancies; and, I understand, more cases of HIV—and all those matters were supposed to have been dealt with by the various Acts that have been passed. Clearly, they are
464
not delivering the goods. Therefore, we ought to consider whether we should continue with this approach.
So the objectives of the 1993 Act have not been achieved—quite the reverse. The logic ought to be that we should examine the kind of sex education that has been promoted in schools and consider whether schools are the best places for children to learn about sexual matters. In that, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. But instead of a complete review, we are being offered more of the same. Even the longstop of Section 28 to prevent the promotion of homosexuality is to be removed without any satisfactory replacement.
It is clear that a great majority of the general public are not in favour of any weakening of the safeguards. Yet those of us who try to reflect that anxiety are often vilified, derided, insulted and even slandered by the so-called liberals. Majorities do not seem to count for anything these days. The powerful minorities with friends in high places hold sway and have to be appeased.
Finally, it appears from at least one project on sex education which is authorised as a guide to teachers the Avon Project—that heterosexuality is under attack from our health authorities, or at least one of them. I shall quote two passages—
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, could we also have some quotes of comparisons with what happens in Europe?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that would be most inappropriate at this time. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the fact that this particular document refers to "heterosexism". It is said on page 21 of the document that heterosexism,
"assumes and promotes the notion that every individual is naturally heterosexual and that this is the norm".
I thought that it was the norm. Indeed, it states on page 22:
"In what ways have we been taught to be heterosexual? (Talk about images bombarding us from media, messages we get from school, friends, family, and also what is accepted and why?)".
I understood that heterosexuality was the natural state of things and that it did not have to be instilled into children by parents, teachers or anyone else. It worries many of us that that concept is being taught in our schools and will continue to be taught in our schools. I hope that we can have assurances from my noble friend that the Government will look at the lessons being taught in the guise of sex education in our schools.
As I said at the beginning, I shall support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I hope that the majority of your Lordships will also do so.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, many concerns are expressed in the amendments discussed today. There are two major issues to be considered. One is that young people should be protected from inappropriate material and teaching about sex and

465
relationships. The other, equally important, is that teachers should be enabled to deliver the sex education for which young people and their parents have consistently asked. I support the Government's amendment, which seems to encompass both issues.
The new guidance on sex and relationships education is long because it is comprehensive. It provides guidance for teachers; and it refers to the importance of knowledge and understanding, relationships, attitudes and values, such as the values of respect, love and care.
I wish to re-emphasise that, apart from guidance, school governing bodies are legally responsible for policies on sex education which they must report to parents annually. One-third of governing bodies are composed of parents. If they wish, parents can withdraw their children from sex education. This area of the curriculum will be inspected from this year. We have guidance and we have safeguards on the area of the curriculum. Surely we now need to trust schools to implement sex and relationships education.
Those who have been responsibly involved in sex and relationships education for some time, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, know that, far from the rampant promotion of unsavoury material, too little co-ordinated sex education has been taught in schools. I sometimes think that not enough attention is given to the, views of the consumers of such education—young people themselves. A recent survey of almost 2,000 young people in Birmingham confirmed what other surveys had found in the past. Young people gay that what sex education they had was inadequate, too biological and did not provide an opportunity for them to explore relationships. Many surveys of parents have concluded that parents want their children to receive sex education and learn about sexual health. Parents worry about media distortions of sexual relationships. They want their children to be able to protect themselves and behave responsibly.
The new guidance emphasises partnership with parents and also deals with the question of sexual health. There are concerns from the medical profession in the United Kingdom about HIV and AIDS and other sexually-transmitted infections in young people, as today's generation missed out on earlier public health education campaigns. This amendment refers to the need for accurate information.
The amendment first refers to the importance of marriage and, secondly, to stable relationships. It seems to me that an emphasis on the stability of relationships should be welcomed, both within and outside marriage. Indeed, given the divorce rates in England, we should begin by helping young people to form stable relationships before they consider marriage. Subsection (2)(c) of the amendment is a key concept. If young people respect themselves and others, they are more likely to form stable relationships.
The Home Office consultation document, Supporting Families, and the survey conducted by the National Family and Parenting Institute maintain
466
that people sometimes experience difficulties in relationships and marriage and would value education support, and that they find the quality of loving more important than the strictures of families.
I deal now with the issue of appropriate material in schools. Material used in schools must match the age and maturity of the young person. It must be culturally sensitive; it must be accurate and unbiased. This is true for history, maths and other subjects. It is a particularly sensitive issue for sex and relationships education. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, appears to support this concept. Her amendment sets out a checklist of materials which could eventually be used in the guidelines. It is a consultation document.
In my experience, teachers have never wanted to corrupt and deprave children, nor are they ever likely to. In any case, there are enough safeguards in place to prevent that happening. The schools of which I have knowledge show materials to parents at parents' evenings. I did so when I was a teacher. I resent the insinuation of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I would ever try to circumvent parents' wishes. Sex and relationships education can be used effectively in schools. However, teachers must not find themselves frozen into failing to deal with sex and relationships issues because they are scared and worried about methods and materials which are not relevant to children's needs.
It is sometimes interesting to ask adults what they thought of their own sex education. They say either that it was, regrettably, non-existent or that it was inappropriate—too little, too late, and mainly biological; sometimes not even human biology, but that of earthworms or rabbits. The ultimate in inappropriate teaching happened to me at school, which is perhaps why I am so keen to get things right. In a subject which was then known as domestic science, the girls at my school had to knit a uterus and, if they ever finished it, push a tennis ball through the end of it to show how a baby was born. That was totally irrelevant to our needs at the time, except that the longer uteruses were quite useful as scarves!
What was produced for consultation last week may not be perfect, nor may the amendment. But it is a start. I have not covered in detail all the aspects of the amendment, but I hope that I have covered most of the issues in a general or a specific way. I urge your Lordships to accept the Government's amendment and work towards giving young people that for which they ask and which they so desperately need.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I should like—
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe that it would be convenient to hear next from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and then my noble friend Lord Davies, followed by the Minister.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I begin by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I am very happy to be

467
described as a Liberal, whether with a big "L" or a small one. However, tonight I speak from the Liberal Democrat Benches, which is perhaps a point that the Chief Whip will bear in mind in future. I have the sense of the House that the best thing I can do now is to say that I agree and then sit down.
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Tope: But I shall not do so, my Lords. I do not intend to say nearly as much as I would have said had I spoken two hours ago. However, I should like to make one or two comments at this stage as I speak for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. It was said nearly two hours ago that the government amendment before the House was a compromise, as it is. It is in the nature of a compromise that few get everything that they want. The right reverend Prelate said that neither he nor his colleagues had achieved all that they wanted in the government amendment.
From a different point, neither I nor many of my noble friends have achieved all that we would have wished. I am not sure that I would have wanted an amendment at all. I have doubts about the desirability and wisdom—or even the possibility—of legislating for morality, but we are where we are. I understand the political situation (with a small "p") which brings us to this situation. Something is required to replace Section 28 which gives reassurance to those who need it, of whom I am not one. Section 28, which is a pernicious piece of legislation, became unnecessary and redundant and therefore had to go. I believe that the provisions of the Education Act 1996 passed by the previous government are sufficient in this area. While we certainly need guidance, it is doubtful whether it needs to be in statutory form. That is the compromise that I make in this matter. We on these Benches support the government amendment. A number of my noble friends felt unable to vote against the repeal of Section 28 and, therefore, did not vote at all, but tonight they also support this amendment. That, too, is the nature of the compromise that many of us make this evening. I urge the House to support the government amendment.
I intended to make a number of points on the amendment which I shall not pursue given the hour. However, I should like to put one question to the Minister; otherwise, I may miss my only opportunity to deal with the point. On the front of the guidance one sees "Draft for consultation". The Minister's letter to me (and no doubt to others) which accompanied the guidance stated that consultation would be open until 20th April. While I am sure that the Government will listen to and take account of anything that is put to them—they can do no less—are they prepared to revise the guidance or will the draft be the real guidance once the legislation is enacted? It would be helpful to have an answer to that question because, while there is much in the guidance that I welcome, it is particularly weak in dealing with the issue of homophobic bullying, on which I have spoken in this House in the past but will not do so again this evening.
468
In view of the time, I say no more except that the amendment is a good compromise. I pay tribute—which I do not do often—to the Government and the right reverend Prelates, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who I know has worked very hard on the issue. I have been heartened by the fact that on a number of occasions when he has spoken on this matter, as he has tonight, he has made clear exactly what the situation is and, even more importantly, what it is not. I am aware that the right reverend Prelate has not always found this an easy matter. I pay tribute to all concerned. We have a good amendment before us, and I urge the House to support it.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, like a number of other noble Lords, I have sat through the whole debate and found many of the arguments wide ranging. Some contributions have been more temperate and tolerant than others. Nevertheless, it has been a very good debate. As the House is aware, I have argued consistently that this is a matter of conscience. That was why as a matter of conscience I voted against the proposal to reduce the age of consent. That was widely acknowledged to be a matter of conscience and, quite correctly, there was a free vote. When we debated Section 28 recently I was critical of both the Government and the Opposition for imposing a three-line Whip because it was clear that the area of consideration was identical to the reduction in the age of consent. That obvious inconsistency was unacceptable to me, and again I voted in accordance with my conscience, which was in opposition to the Government's proposal to repeal Section 28.
This evening I shall again vote in accordance with my conscience, not someone else's conscience and certainly not the party's conscience. When we debated Section 28 on 7th February we knew that for some years events had overtaken the significance of its provisions. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which by Section 2A amended the Local Government Act 1986, became isolated and effectively moribund by the enactment of the Education Act 1993. The 1993 Act made the provision of personal and sexual education in schools the responsibility of school governors.
However, I recognise, as I believe do most noble Lords, that Section 28 was seen as having much greater significance than its legal status. When the Government proposed its repeal it became a kind of clarion call and the arguments became polarised on one question; namely, whether homosexuality should be promoted in schools. It is on that, and that alone, that I wish to focus my attention. I believe that if we are not careful we are in danger of drifting, perhaps quite inadvertently, into homophobia. This is not about relationships between consenting adults. We all know that homosexual relationships have been legal in this country for a considerable period. Whatever views one may take about that, unequivocally the issue here is the protection of children and young people who are at a vulnerable stage of their lives when they have not yet come to terms with their sexuality. None of us,

469
however accidentally, must allow our feelings about homosexuality in general to cloud our judgment when addressing the specific issue of the protection of children and young people in our schools from the promotion of homosexuality.
Why do I stress this point? Like many other noble Lords, I have received an enormous mail bag about this debate. Many who have written have expressed genuine fears about the promotion of homosexuality in schools. I understand and support their concerns, but I would be less than honest if I ignored the fact that some of the correspondence expressed or reflected homophobic tendencies. Although my position is always to ensure that children are afforded the protection that they need, I worry about the danger of fuelling hysteria, which can only result in making a very difficult and sensitive situation even worse.
It is not my intention to repeat the terms of the Government's amendment to the Education Act 1996, which seeks to replace Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, because the details are before the House. However, I make two short points about the Government's amendment. First, I believe that the Government have changed their position since they were defeated in this House on 7th February. They have reconsidered the matter and produced an amendment which in legal terms—it will be in the appropriate piece of legislation—will afford greater protection to children and young children than Section 28. That amendment, coupled with the guidance notes which have the force of law, means that we have obtained from the Government what we sought. I firmly believe that the Government's proposals make it illegal to promote homosexuality in schools.
Secondly, I am aware that different people will place a different interpretation or construction on the Government's amendment. I believe in all conscience that what the Government have done in response to our decision of 7th February achieves the protection that I sought. I am not prepared to allow any political feelings or general views about homosexuality that I may have to cloud my thinking on this important question. I am solely focusing on the protection of children which initially I set out to achieve. I urge all noble Lords to do likewise.
I know that the term "stable relationships" has caused a considerable degree of concern. But from my reading of the amendment and the guidance notes the term has far more significance for unmarried heterosexual couples living together with children than for homosexual couples. We may have clear views about marriage on the one hand, and unmarried couples living together and bringing up children on the other. But whatever our views, we cannot apportion guilt to the children whose parents are unmarried; and we must never do anything that will lead them to feel guilty, because if we do so the blame is ours and not theirs. I believe that in their proposals the Government are dealing with this delicate situation correctly and sensitively.
I have had may about the Government's original intention to repeal Section 28. I have expressed my concerns and I have voted according to my conscience.
470
Now the Government have responded in a way that meets my concerns. Therefore, having now achieved what I believe the Government should have done in the first place, I shall support their amendment and shall no longer resist the repeal of Section 28 when the issue comes before us in the summer. It has always seemed sensible to me that when you have won you stop fighting. I commend that view to the House.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it has been a long debate and I hope the House will understand if I cannot respond to all the points raised. Were I to do so, I think that we should all be kept here for far too long, and much longer than most Members of your Lordships' House would want.
I should like to say at the outset how grateful I am to many of the speakers in the debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, for her wise remarks about stable relationships and the many forms that they can take as well as her equally wise observations about inappropriate materials in schools. I am also extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate and others who have supported the government amendment, including the Liberal Democrat Benches. In responding to the debate, I want to focus in particular on the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Let me begin with Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. I have heard much today about what sort of messages we send to young people. I think that we should have a little humility and realise that we need to be very clear indeed about regulating other people's lives. These amendments aim to set into legislation a statement about the supremacy of marriage, and seek to wreck the consensus approach that the Government have reached with the enormous help of the Churches on this matter. They seek to send a negative signal to those in society who choose not to enter into marriage but nevertheless are in loving, caring, stable relationships.
I spoke earlier about the need for the government amendment to be inclusive and to reflect the whole of society around us. I regret to say that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, seek to be exclusive. As such they give no reassurance to those in relationships other than marriage and will stigmatise children at school whose parents are not married. We must not go down the road of teaching children to criticise their parents' values and the structure of their families which may be different from those supported by some noble Lords. There is a large percentage of children in this country whose parents are not married. Nowadays almost 40 per cent of all children are born outside of marriage. The proposed amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are simply unacceptable on that basis alone.
I repeat: there should be no doubt that the Government support the institution of marriage arid that they believe that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships. We have set out a framework that is firmly stated in the government amendment and the guidance. In the real world there

471
are many relationships outside marriage. The Government recognise that and their consultation document Supporting Families made it clear that in giving its support to marriage it does not mean trying to make people marry or criticising or penalising those who choose not to. It is not the role of Government to behave in that way. It also states that there are strong and mutually supportive families outside marriage. Regrettably, of course, some marriages are anything but stable: a legal document is no guarantee of stability and we cannot pretend otherwise.
In preparing young people for the opportunities and responsibilities of adult life—which is a clear objective of both the government amendment and the draft guidance—we must honestly reflect that the real world of adult life that young people are moving into may not be one of which everyone in your Lordships' House approves. The amendment and the guidance reflects a balance where we concentrate on young people's personal development and where each individual is valued regardless of his or her marital status. What matters in bringing up children is that they are within a stable and loving relationship: that they are loved, cared for and cherished. The Government's amendment represents a sensible approach that will allow sex and relationship education to be delivered covering family life and marriage while being sensitive to the wide range of circumstances of those children being taught today in our schools.
I turn now to the Amendment No. 13 tabled by the noble Baroness. It relates both to the promotion of sexual orientation and the use of materials. The first part of the amendment seeks to remove the reference in the government amendment to young people being given accurate information for the purposes of enabling them to understand difference and of preventing or removing prejudice. I find it quite staggering that Members of this House would consider removing from the face of legislation reference to teaching children about different groups in society and removing prejudice. The government amendment reflects the wider PSHE framework which is intended to teach young people to respect the differences between people, about the effects of stereotyping, prejudice and bullying, racism and discrimination. We live in a world of many different peoples and beliefs. If we are to prepare young people for adulthood they need to have an appreciation of others with views different from themselves. I am astonished that the noble Baroness seeks to remove this part of the Government's amendment.
Much concern has also been raised about the issue of promoting sexual orientation. Both the amendment tabled by the Government and the guidance are extremely firm in this area. It is the job of teachers and others to help young people learn to respect themselves and others and move with confidence from childhood through adolescence into adulthood. Teachers should be able to help young people understand themselves, and be able to deal honestly and openly with questions about sexuality. Much has been said throughout the
472
course of all the debates on sex and relationship education and the repeal of Section 28 about the need to protect young people. We must not forget that sex and relationship education is for all young people in schools, including those who identify themselves as gay or lesbian. Their protection must not be forgotten and they are entitled to expect honesty, openness and support from their teachers and to receive their education free from bullying because of what they are. Talk of protection must seem very hollow to those who have suffered homophobic abuse at school.
There has also been much talk about converting or persuading young people into a particular sexual orientation. Even if it were possible to convert or persuade young people to a particular sexuality, our draft guidance makes it abundantly clear that sex and relationship education,
"is not about the promotion of sexual orientation or sexual activity—this would be inappropriate teaching".
Amendment No. 13 also seeks to protect children from inappropriate teaching materials. Let me set out the Government's position on this. Major concerns have been voiced about the inappropriate use of materials. I understand those concerns. It has been one of the major planks of attack by those opposing the repeal of Section 28. I am afraid that we have seen a great deal of misinformation in the media and local authorities stand accused of wishing to send all manner of unsuitable material to schools.
We confuse this issue. Quite clearly, there may be explicit material produced by local authorities to help them fight the spread of disease. They have been successful in that respect in that the incidence of HIV/AIDS in this country is much lower than many previous forecasts. But that material is produced not for schools, but for a particular audience and for a particular purpose.
Much of the concern which has been expressed on some of the material that is available to schools is unfounded and there has been unfortunate scaremongering. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was indulging in such scaremongering when she commented on the use of the term "role play" in the guidance. She then linked that with all kinds of sexual behaviour with which she disapproves. I do not deny that there is reference to role play, but there is not reference to the context to which the noble Baroness referred in the draft guidance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness is not suggesting that I am dishonest. The context, the content and the detail of how the lesson should be taught is all in the teaching pack.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not referring to the teaching pack; I am referring to the Government's draft guidance.
The truth of the matter is that decisions as to what materials are to be used in schools are not for the local authority, but for the individual school, as the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said. Again, we have set out in the amendment that inappropriate materials

473
should not be used. We have also set out firm advice to teachers in the guidance so that they are much more able to choose what is appropriate.
Perhaps I may quote from the guidance. On page 6, it is stated:
"Materials used in schools must be in accordance with the PSHE framework and law. Governors and headteachers should discuss with parents and take on board concerns raised both on materials which are offered to schools and sensitive materials used in the classroom".
Our amendment also sets out that headteachers and governing bodies must have regard to the guidance. In short, the Government have taken on board the concerns expressed and dealt with them.
Having set out the Government's position, let us look at the rest of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is clear in its intention to import the lawyer into the class room. I have many friends who are lawyers, but I do not think that that is appropriate. It talks of children being protected from teaching mater al which "any reasonable person" would regard as inappropriate. What is the definition and purpose of this reasonable person?
The noble Baroness knows full well that in such a sensitive area as sex education, there has to be consensus to deliver it in our schools. The proper people to reach that consensus are teachers in consultation with governors and parents. But this amendment opens up a challenge from any reasonable person who may or may not have something to do with the school. If e debates over the past few months have taught us nothing else, they have taught us that teachers in our schools need support to deliver effective sex and relationship education. They cannot do that if they are under constant threat of challenge in the courts. It is living with the day-to-day threat of that challenge, imposed by the previous government and their willingness to impose by central dictat in this area, that has so disabled the delivery of effective sex education in many areas of the country.
The amendment seeks to continue to hold back and stifle the good work that teachers are doing, which they do in consultation with parents and with the support of parents. It is an absurd amendment aimed at disenfranchising those most concerned with the delivery of sex education; that is, the teachers and the parents. The government amendment sets out that young people should be entitled to accurate information. The proposed amendment from the noble Baroness and others makes that entitlement contingent on the view of the so-called "reasonable person". There are many reasonable people in your Lordships' House tonight, but they have many different views on this sensitive and difficult matter.
I turn to Amendment No. 17. It calls for any guidance on sex and relationship education which is issued, or is substantially revised, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Such a provision is virtually without precedent for education guidance and would be unnecessary. The whole purpose of the government amendment before the House today is to establish the principles which should inform the
474
guidance. We have clearly set out in the government amendment the objectives for sex education and we have done so thoroughly.
The objectives and principles which will inform the guidance have been subject to very wide consultation, including with leaders from the Church and faith groups and those in the education world. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that many faiths have been consulted in addition to the Anglican and Catholic Churches. Although it is the case that the Chief Rabbi personally was not consulted, his representatives were.
The way in which they are to be reflected in the guidance is subject to a major consultation and we shall take on board the comments we receive. Perhaps I may reassure those noble Lords who asked questions about the draft guidance and the consultation process—that is, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Lord, Lord Tope—that we intend the consultation to be a real one and to be a serious one. We shall listen carefully to any responses that are made. But of course we shall have to strike a balance between a whole variety of different comments which may be made.
Under the government amendment, both Houses will set clear statutory provision to which the Secretary of State must adhere when issuing the guidance. There are arrangements to consult widely on the guidance and we have already consulted very widely on the drift guidance. We have consulted with those who have expertise in sex and relationship education and whose job it is to deliver it and whose children it concerns—that is, the headteachers, the teachers, the governors and the parents—and we shall continue to consult them.
Having agreed a clear framework, it would be totally inappropriate in constitutional terms for Parliament to become involved in the detail of the guidance. Indeed, there is a positive benefit in allowing schools to develop policies sensitive to their local communities and the children who attend the schools.
Amendment No. 17 also leaves unclear the circumstances in which parliamentary approval would be needed. It refers to "substantial revision" as a trigger. This would leave the Government unclear about whether to bring any revisions forward for approval. Guidance in the educational world is often revised to take account of changing circumstances arid new policies. In some circumstances, changing just a few words might be taken as a substantial revision. It would be quite wrong to place such vague words in legislation. For those reasons, the Government oppose the amendment.
Amendment No. 19 would require schools to take reasonable steps to involve parents in the sex and relationship education offered at school and the materials used. This is a very important issue and I want to reinforce what I said in my opening speech. Research shows that children want their initial sex and relationship education from their parents and families, with school and other adults building on that later. We have made a significant point in the guidance about

475
working with parents and involving them in a school's sex and relationship education policy. Parents do need support in this area, as do schools.
As I said in my opening remarks on the government amendment, since September 1994 there has been provision for parents to withdraw their child from all or part of sex education provided by a maintained school. Nowhere in our amendment are we seeking to remove that provision. In fact, as I said earlier, very few parents exercise their right to withdraw. But it will remain open to a parent who is not content with the sex education offered in their child's school to remove their child.
I should also remind the House that the amendment before it today setting out the principles and objectives for sex and relationship education requires headteachers and governors to have regard to the guidance. The guidance specifically sets out that schools should involve parents in their sex and relationships education policy and the steps that need to be taken when they intend to use sensitive material. I have already quoted the relevant passage from the guidance in my comments on Amendment No. 13. The guidance is quite clear on the need for consultation, so the amendment is unnecessary.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will forgive me if I do not go through all his amendments. He has already said that he does not intend to press them.
We have heard a great deal of talk as to whether the Government are saying that homosexual relationships are the moral equivalence of marriage. I have set out very clearly the Government's position in bringing forward this amendment and the guidance which is out for consultation. We support the institution of marriage. I remind the House of what is said in the amendment. It states that in receiving sex education children should,
"learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for the bringing up of children".
That is unequivocal. But, as I reminded the House earlier when I quoted from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, we live in a real world, where it is necessary not only to recognise that there are other forms of stable relationships which are outside of marriage and that stable relationships within society are better than unstable ones. It is not for the Government to give a moral opinion about who people should conduct their relationships with, but our guidance for schools explains the benefits of stability in all relationships.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could confirm one point. Is it part of the Government's thinking that this will enable them to make our statute book compatible with convention rights?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was about to come to one or two specific questions of that kind that had been raised by noble Lords in the course of the debate. I can confirm that the noble Lord is correct in his interpretation of the Government's approach.
476
Perhaps I may respond to points that were made by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. He suggested that the Government had been wrong in failing to consult the noble Baroness, Lady Young, although I do not think that she suggested that herself. It is not normally the Government's policy to consult members of the Opposition about the formulation and development of policy. I cannot remember being consulted in the many years I sat on the Opposition Front Bench on this kind of matter. I do not really see why the Government should be asked to do so. Perhaps I may also say to my noble friend, because he seems to have forgotten this, that the guidance out for consultation is indeed a draft. I have already commented on our intention to take this extremely seriously.
We have come a long way in the debate on sex and relationship education and the many issues which connect with it. It has at times been very arduous. But throughout this Government have listened carefully to all the concerns that have been expressed. Much heat has been generated, but I would ask noble Lords to consider that where there was before in relation to Section 28 only negative threats which gave no advice to teachers on how to take forward sensitive issues of sex education, we now have set in place a wide range of statutory provision and well thought through guidance to help teachers and schools to deliver sex education.
Those safeguards reflect the need to protect children and young people, but they also guide teachers and schools on how to address the individual needs of all young people so that they can grow up respecting themselves and others. We have turned the negative into the positive. It is what our young people deserve and what they expect.
Finally, perhaps I may come back to the government amendments, which have been agreed after long negotiation with representatives of the Churches, to whom we are most grateful. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind enough to compare them with the 39 articles. I cannot say whether they stand up to the quality of the drafting of the 39 articles, but I recognise that, just as I am sure is the case in the 39 articles, not every element will be acceptable to every Member of your Lordships' House. I hope that a spirit of compromise will prevail. I urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and support the government amendments. But if they are unable to do so, then I urge Peers from all sides of the House to join me in the Lobby so that together we can ensure that we do not let down our young people.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking all those who have supported me in this long debate. A long time ago, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the government amendment is of course a fudge. It is of course a fudge. One had only to listen to the arguments to see how they had brought together those who believe in marriage and those who do not believe in marriage. I listened with care to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who said, if I understood him correctly, that he believed in putting marriage first but of course we are

477
in the real world and everything else had to be considered as well. So, of course, this is a fudge. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, clearly puts marriage at the bottom of her list of things. Everything else is more important.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I must protest against that. No one has ever accused me of not believing in marriage. I believe marriage to be extremely important. Nothing that I said could be construed as saying that marriage is not at the top of my list.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am very pleased to have that statement from the noble Baroness. I shall read again her speech, but the way I heard it, it did not sound quite like that. I can assure her that I have very many friends who are Methodists who would not agree with a great deal of what she said.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have listened quite quietly to all the speeches and I would be obliged if I was not interrupted during mine. It would be very nice if noble Lords would just listen and let me get on with it.
This is a very serious issue. It is not a matter for fudge. It is not actually a matter for a compromise. What in fact is being put before the House is not a compromise but a very clever collection of well spun words which amount to allowing not just marriage but homosexual or other relationships to be equated equally. I would not have stood up so many times to speak in your Lordships' House if I did not always put first in my remarks children. We are talking about children—children who are obliged to go to school; we are talking about responsible parents; and we are putting before them something which is very confused indeed. I have read the 28 pages of guidance. Marriage is hardly mentioned. It is all about sex and relationships. That is the confusion which is put before young people today.
I believe, as I have said many times before, that when you teach, you should teach the ideal to children—what we would like to see that is best. We do that in other subjects. We choose not to do it in this one. However, I do not believe that we should accept the government amendment this evening. It is not a compromise. It is, in fact, not a substitute for Section 28; it is what preceded Section 28 in another form of words—a rather dangerous form of words at that.
I shall not say anything more this evening. I do not accept the government amendment. I ask the House to support me in my amendments which I believe correct the Government's amendment and provide something which is worthy to put before our children. I commend my amendment to the House.
8 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 190; Not-Contents, 175.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hanham, B

Ackner, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Aldington, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Higgins, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Hogg, B.

L.

Holderness, L.

Arran, E.

Home, E.

Astor, V.

Hooper, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe, E.

Attlee, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Barber, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Bell, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blackwell, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Blatch, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Boardman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Kelvedon, L.

Bridges, L.

Kimball, L.

Brightman, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Burnham, L.

Kingsland, L.

Buscombe, B.

Kirkham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Caithness, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lane, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Listowel, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chadlington, L.

Longford, E.

Chalfont, L.

Luke, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Colwyn, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Courtown, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cox, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cranborne, V.

Monson, L.

Crathorne, L.

Montrose, D.

Crickhowell, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Cuckney, L.

Moran, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Deedes, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Nickson, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Norfolk, D.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Elles, B.

Northbrook, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Feldman, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Fookes, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Freeman, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Parkinson, L.

Geddes, L.

Patten, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Glentoran, L.

Peel, E.

Goschen, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Greenway, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hambro, L.

Plumb, L.

479

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Stewartby, L.

Prentice, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Prior, L.

Strange, B.

Pym, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rawlings, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Tebbit, L.

Reay, L.

Tenby, V.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Thatcher, B.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tombs, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Vinson, L.

Saatchi, L.

Vivian, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover,

Waddington, L.

L.

Wakeham, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Weatherill, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wharton, B.

Selborne, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Sharpies, B.

Wilcox, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wolfson, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Stallard, L.

Young, B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Alderdice, L.

Falkland, V.

Alii, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Amos, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Filkin, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Flowers, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gale, B.

Attenborough, L.

Geraint, L.

Avebury, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bach, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Barker, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Barnett, L.

Goodhart, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bin, L.

Goudie, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Borrie, L.

Greengross, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Gregson, L.

Bragg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Brett, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brookman, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Harrison, L.

Burlison, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hattersley, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hayman, B.

Christopher, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Crawley, B.

Hoyle, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

David, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. {Lord

Davies of Oldham, L.

Chancellor)

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jacobs, L.

Desai, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Dholakia, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dubs, L.

Joffe, L.

Eatwell, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Elder, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Ezra, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

480

Levy, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Rix, L.

Lipsey, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Ludford, B.

Russell, E.

McCarthy, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sandberg, L.

[Teller]

Sawyer, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Serota, B.

McNally, L.

Sewel, L.

Maddock, B.

Sharman, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Shepherd, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Methuen, L.

Stern, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mishcon, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Taveme, L.

Newby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Nicol, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thornton, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Tomlinson, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve,B.

Tope, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Tordoff, L.

Paul, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Peston, L.

Varley, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Warner, L.

Prashar, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Puttnam, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Whitaker, B.

Randall of St, Budeaux, L.

Whitty, L.

Razzall, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rea, L.

Wilkins, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rennard, L

Williams of Elvel, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Richard, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, agreed to accordingly.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with the leave of the House, this amendment has demolished the carefully constructed agreement and safeguards built into the government amendment to the Learning and Skills Bill on the provision of sex education. It has deliberately excluded the key objective that pupils are given accurate information for the purposes of enabling them to understand difference and preventing or removing prejudice.
The prevention and removal of prejudice are essential to the building of a society in which citizens respect one another. The Government are not prepared to support legislation which will leave children from different family backgrounds to be stigmatised and could lead to discrimination and bullying.
In the light of this amendment, and after my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has consulted the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, I wish to tell the

481
House that we shall seek to delete this amendment in another place. It remains for me to pay tribute to those who at some personal cost have been prepared to sit down and work out a rational way forward.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I refer to a piece of information given by the noble Baroness which is simply wrong. My noble friend's Amendment No. 13—a test of the teaching and materials—relates to whether the information is accurate and objective. That is the amendment on the Marshalled List.
Secondly, I believe that we live in a democracy and that all Members of this House have the right to vote. I would have had to live with the vote had it gone the other way and I should have accepted that as the will of this House. I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not feel able to do the same.
Finally, I respect the views of the noble Baroness, which are shared by many of her friends, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and the majority of his colleagues who are here today. I believe that they had every right to speak and vote, just as my noble friends and I have views which I hoped the noble Baroness would respect. In the past, mutual respect of all the Benches has always been a hallmark of this House. Of course, it is the Government's prerogative to seek to overturn the amendment. But I thought the words of the noble Baroness in defeat were churlish.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I explain what will happen now. The Government will accept all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, does not intend to press his amendments, so I suggest that when we reach them he says "Not moved" and that the noble Baroness formally moves all those in her name.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Government Chief Whip whether it is a fact that the views of your Lordships' House—after all, the composition of this House has been made by the Government—are to be disregarded to such an extent that a prepared statement was written in advance of the Division and read out immediately afterwards so that the Government apparently take no notice at all of what your Lordships have said.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Government have made the position entirely clear. The words which my noble friend used were very careful. She said that the Government will "seek" to overturn the amendment in the Commons.
Baroness Youngmoved, as an Amendment No. 7, Amendment No.9:
Leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—
("( ) learn about the significance of relationships;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments, Nos. 10 to 12, as amendments No. 7, not moved.]
Baroness Youngmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 13:
Leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert—
("() 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.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, as amendments to Amendment No. 7, not moved.]
Baroness Youngmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 17:
Leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert—
("(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.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, not moved.]
Baroness Youngmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 19:
Line 50, at end insert—
("Curriculum etc. for sex education: Consultation and approval.
403B.—(1) No curriculum, syllabus or teaching material may be used for the purpose of giving sex education to registered pupils at a maintained school unless—

(a) reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that (he parents or guardians of the relevant pupils have been consulted about its nature and content; and

(b) the governing body of the school has approved its use.

(2) In this section—
"maintained school" has the meaning given in section 403A, and
"relevant pupils" means pupils to whom the education in question is to be given.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 91, line 29, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 104, subsection (4). Sections 105 to 108, In section 109, subsections (3)(b) and (4).")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is consequential on my grammar school amendment. I beg to move.

483
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, my noble friend Lord Bach and I would like to say how grateful we are to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debates on the Bill. Those debates have been in the very best traditions of this House and have helped the Government to ensure that an improved Bill now passes to another place. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000
8.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, pollution is still a serious problem. Medical estimates suggest that it leads to as many as 24,000 people dying prematurely every year. In our heavily congested areas, industrial pollution has been replaced by traffic pollution.
The Environment Act 1995 required the Government to prepare a national air quality strategy setting objectives for improving air quality. It also gave local authorities a role to identify where poor air quality means that prescribed air quality objectives will not be met and to draw up action plans to address that problem. In January this year, we published the air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which replaces the 1997 strategy published by the previous administration. Our strategy sets overall tighter objectives and identifies the actions needed at international, national and local level to meet them.
National measures will go a considerable way—or, in some cases, such as benzene, all the way—to meeting the objectives. But there is a significant local dimension to air quality which local authorities are best placed to tackle. We are required by the 1995 Act to set the strategy's new objectives in regulations if local authorities are to play their full part in meeting them. The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 before us do that and will replace the existing Air Quality Regulations 1997 in England. We are confident that those objectives are based on the latest and best scientific and health information. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Viscount Simon: My Lords, the only reason I wish to speak this evening is to address and dispel some of the
484
myths concerning emissions made by motor vehicles on our roads. The urban emissions of PM l Os from the 79,000 buses and 414,000 HGVs in the UK are more than double those of the 24 million cars but, despite that and taking the 1992 index as 100, in the second quarter of 1999 those particulates had fallen to an index of about 55. During the same period, toxic emissions from cars reduced by 47 per cent despite an 11 per cent increase in road traffic. That is because cleaner fuels and more environmentally friendly vehicles have negated the effect of traffic growth.
The only emissions which remained constant throughout the 1990s were those of CO2, which can be reduced only by either introducing alternative methods of propelling vehicles or by promoting the greater use of diesel cars. It should be noted that 27 per cent of the UK's annual emissions of CO2 is produced by the use of energy in the home, compared with 14 per cent from car use. Notwithstanding what I have said, the regulations are to be met with approval, certainly from me and hopefully from all people living in this country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations and for doing so with a great degree of brevity, which I hope that I may have been to some extent responsible for encouraging.
I have quite a long speech to make on the regulations, but noble Lords will be glad to know that I shall not make it because all the points were made by my honourable friends in another place only yesterday.
The Minister will acknowledge that the regulations stem from an Act introduced by the previous government. Therefore, we can hardly oppose them from this side of the House. They are excellent in principle. I have only one question. I gather that £12 million is being set aside for local authorities to implement the regulations. I hope that it is enough. Will the Minister explain how that figure breaks down among local authorities and whether it is in fact enough for them to carry out implementation? In many cases, local authorities have been given powers and duties but they always complain that they do not have quite enough money to fulfil them. I hope that the Minister will assure me that that will not be the case here. Otherwise, we entirely endorse the regulations.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I gather that noble Lords support the regulations but share the concern about particles. Will the Minister tell the House what monitoring is to be carried out by his department and what steps will be taken if it is clear that the various targets will not be met in time; in other words, might there be a repeat of the particles target downgrading?
I share also the concerns to ensure that local authorities are adequately resourced to deal with monitoring. I should welcome assurances that the cost to local authorities of implementing local air quality strategies will be fully funded. Will the Minister tell

485
us—perhaps this is a rather wide question for this point in the proceedings—how those targets dovetail with the Government's climate change strategy?
I have two comments, which are also in part questions, which arise from local experiences. I was at a meeting in West London last week to discuss the effect of aircraft noise and other pollution from aircraft on people who live under flight paths and near to airports. Comments were made about aircraft fuel by neighbours of Heathrow Airport. As aircraft line up to take off, one can smell and taste the fuel. How is it measured? What are the effects on people of being exposed to aircraft emissions?
My second point is that many schools—including many primary schools—are located on main roads. Parents are concerned about the effects of pollution from traffic on children in playgrounds or using school premises. Can the Minister send me away with reassurances about that, particularly given the problems relating to PM10s?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the relatively short contributions this evening. In response to my noble friend Lord Simon, it is of course true that other sectors beside the transport sector contribute to CO2 emissions. The transport sector creates emissions which particularly affect local air quality, which is the subject of these regulations rather than CO2 itself. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, hinted, CO2 is covered by a separate strategy which we set out in great detail a few days ago in our climate change programme which is for discussion now. It covers the whole range of new approaches to restriction of CO2, including the area of cleaner fuels to which my noble friend Lord Simon referred.
With regard to the relative importance of transport and other areas in this context, it is true that other areas make a greater contribution to the deteriorating situation in relation to CO2, but it is mainly the contribution from transport which is rising at a substantial rate. That is not entirely offset by the increased fuel efficiency in vehicles as they come onstream.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, raised the costs to local authorities of pursuing the programme. If he sought a breakdown of the distribution of the £12 million to particular local authorities, I fear that I cannot give it to him tonight. We are confident that that figure is sufficient to meet the objectives. We are in constant co-operation with the LGA and local authorities on those matters. If there are particular problems, we shall seek to address them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about monitoring. There is continuous monitoring of the programme. It is unlikely that there will be changes in any short-term objectives or any of the objectives to which the present programme refers. It was difficult for us to meet the targets relating to particles. However, we have not downgraded the target. We have adopted the European target. That is an objective that we are still seeking to achieve.
486
On aircraft pollution, in the monitoring and measurement of air pollution, the effects of pollution from aircraft register. It is true that, although pollution from aircraft is relatively small in proportion to the total amount of pollution, in terms of local pollution and in terms of CO2 it is growing rapidly and I believe that the international community will have to address it seriously.
I hope that I have answered most of the points that have been raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Audit Commission's Code of Audit Practice: March 2000
8.30 p.m.
Lord Whittyrose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 9th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new Code of Audit Practice for local authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales.
The code is the Audit Commission's document. As statute requires, it has been prepared by the independent commission to be used by the independent professional auditors which the commission appoints to audit local government and National Health Service bodies.
In essence the code is two codes. First, it replaces the existing Code of Audit Practice, which ceases to have effect on 21st July, and the new code prescribes the way in which external auditors must carry out their financial audit tasks. Secondly, it is a code that deals with best value and the responsibilities of local authority auditors in relation to the audit of the new best value performance plans and the best value regime.
In preparing the code, the commission has taken account of wider audit developments. It reflects the increased risk-based approach to audit, auditors' new responsibilities in relation to regularity in NHS bodies, increased emphasis on work related to standards of financial conduct within audited bodies and the new duty to audit best value performance plans.
The code covers all aspects of auditors' responsibilities and sets out the general principles to be followed by auditors; the audit framework within which auditors will carry out their responsibilities; and auditors' responsibilities in relation to reviews on the financial aspects of corporate governance, the audit of the accounts and reviews of aspects of performance management.
It is the responsibility of audited bodies to put in place suitable arrangements to ensure the proper conduct of their financial affairs. Auditors must review those systems to ensure that they are adequate to maintain the legality of transactions and that the financial standing of the body is soundly based.
The code also sets out auditors' responsibilities for reviewing the aspects of performance of audited bodies. Auditors review and report on the

487
arrangements in place to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources. From 1st April auditors in local government will audit the new best value performance plans which all bodies must prepare and publish.
The code will come into effect once approved by this House. It will apply to all audits currently in progress and to the audits for the financial year commencing on 1st April 2000. A transitional annexe sets out the guidance for audits currently in progress. Essentially, that is the guidance from the existing code that is being re-approved for this transitional period to provide continuity for work in progress. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 9th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we broadly welcome this. It is the first time that a document like this has been introduced as an order, which must be good. Again, I have prepared a speech which I shall not make in view of the lateness of the hour and the events that have taken place this evening. I am sorry that there are not more noble Lords in the House to take account of this great event. Nevertheless, we have to put up with what we have. Perhaps I should rephrase that.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is looking for words such as "feel the quality"!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, never mind the quality feel the width! I am told that there is a national shortage of auditors. It could be said that one of the Government's lasting achievements will be that they have created a massive increase in the auditing industry. However, we support the order and we support the document. It covers not only local government but also the National Health Service. With all the promises that have been made for the National Health Service, it will be even more important that this is taken forward.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we too support the order. I make one comment. I note that in the section dealing with best value performance plans, paragraph 74, the statement is made that,
"Auditors should meet this responsibility by reviewing, and where appropriate examining evidence relevant to … the adequacy of the systems that the audited body"—
local authorities, by and large—
"has put in place to collect and record specified performance information".
As we said during the passage of the Local Government Act 1999 which introduced best value, we believe that it is important that the performance indicators that are applied are not so standardised that they become inappropriate to different local circumstances. We believe that best value should be a means of local authorities developing the appropriate indicators for their own circumstances. We hope that the Audit Commission will be a helpful part of that
488
process rather than a process of standardisation that may fail to recognise what is truly best value in different circumstances.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for recognising the historic importance of this small assembly here tonight. It is important that the code of practice receives parliamentary approval and it is important that we note that it covers the National Health Service and the introduction of the best value provisions. In relation to the National Health Service, the Audit Commission is clearly carrying out a task on behalf of Parliament, and therefore it is slightly different from the audit situation in relation to local government.
The noble Lord claims that there is a shortage of auditors. There are some difficulties in the private sector in auditing private companies, but I believe that by organising its work effectively the Audit Commission will be able to carry out these tasks.
In relation to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the nature of the indicators, we believe that the best value regime will allow a degree of flexibility of indicators in a way in which past regimes perhaps have not and which, therefore, will be responsive to local circumstances. Nevertheless, they will press on local authorities the need to achieve best value in all their endeavours. The way in which the Audit Commission develops its regime should help local authorities to develop their own internal targets and indicators of their performance.
Therefore, I hope this is the basis of a constructive relationship between the Audit Commission, the local authorities and National Health Service bodies.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 (Transfer of NAO Staff etc.) Order 2000
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvalerose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [12th Report front the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is a technical measure made necessary by the new audit arrangements in Scotland. The Scotland Act 1998 required the Scottish Parliament to legislate setting out detailed arrangements for auditing the accounts of the Scottish Executive and other public bodies in Scotland; and for conducting value-for-money studies into how these bodies have used their resources. That Act also set up the office of Auditor General for Scotland and transferred various functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Detailed arrangements for conducting audits and value-for-money studies were, however, for the Scottish Parliament to enact.
It has now done so through the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 which received Royal Assent on 17th January this year. Among its

489
many facets, this Act puts in place arrangements for the establishment of a unified public audit service in Scotland called Audit Scotland. This order makes provision consequential on the Act, and in particular provides for the transfer of about 40 staff, plus certain property and liabilities from the National Audit Office in Scotland to Audit Scotland on 1st April this year.
On 1st April the Auditor General for Scotland will take over from the Comptroller and Auditor General responsibility for audit and value-for-money studies in relation to the Scottish Administration and other devolved Scottish bodies. In connection with this, NAO staff employed, and property or liabilities held in connection with these responsibilities, should also transfer to Audit Scotland.
Personnel currently working for both the National Audit Office in Scotland and the Accounts Commission will staff Audit Scotland, the new unified Scottish public audit service. Audit Scotland's main role will be to support the Auditor General for Scotland and the Accounts Commission in their duties of scrutinising the financial effectiveness of both local and central government.
The Accounts Commission is a devolved body and so the transfer of staff and other rights and liabilities from the Accounts Commission to Audit Scotland is provided for in the Act of the Scottish Parliament.
490
However, the NAO is a body established under UK legislation, and so this order is needed to transfer NAO staff, property and liabilities.
The order makes provision for the transfer of NAO staff in Edinburgh, and the rights and liabilities of the Comptroller and Auditor General to Audit Scotland with effect from 1st April 2000. The property referred to does not, however, include the premises presently occupied by the NAO in Edinburgh.
Under the order, staff transferred from the NAO will be employed by Audit Scotland on terms and conditions at least equal to those enjoyed while employed by the NAO. The transferred staff can also continue to participate in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.
I shall close by explaining that the order is largely a technical but necessary measure providing for the smooth introduction of the new audit arrangements made necessary by the Scotland Act 1998. On this basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her exact description of this order, which we support.
On Question Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Sudan
  Sudan
  Austria and the EU
  Austria and the EU
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher Scheme
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher Scheme
  IT Regulation
  IT Regulation
  Lords Ministers: Special Advisers
  Lords Ministers: Special Advisers
  Prime Minister's Chief Press Secretary and Chief of Staff
  Prime Minister's Chief Press Secretary and Chief of Staff
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Strategic Communications Unit
  "Envoy" and "Czar": Definitions
  "Envoy" and "Czar": Definitions
  "Czars": Terms and Conditions of Appointment
  "Czars": Terms and Conditions of Appointment
  Millennium Dome Site Development
  Millennium Dome Site Development
  Merrywood School, Bristol
  Merrywood School, Bristol
  Edinburgh University: Grant of Patent to Alter Cells
  Edinburgh University: Grant of Patent to Alter Cells
  Blood Products: Pooling
  Blood Products: Pooling
  Irish Sea: Temporary Prohibition of Fishing
  Irish Sea: Temporary Prohibition of Fishing
  Cows: Slaughter Scheme Weight Limit
  Cows: Slaughter Scheme Weight Limit
  Forestry: Investment Yield
  Forestry: Investment Yield
  MAFF Restructuring
  MAFF Restructuring