Sitting of 6 April 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Children's Rights Commissioner Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
9.33 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a privilege to support the Bill. It is not mine—I did not write it—so I can say that I regard it as a great Bill. It is about the protection of children, which is vital in itself, but it is also about our democracy and how we use a great international agreement—the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—and bring it alive in this country.
The Bill invites us to change the way in which we consider children and calls on us to stop viewing them as the passive object of our concern, to invite their participation, to value their point of view, to promote their human rights and to recognise our duties towards them. If anyone should doubt the importance of that, let them contemplate the shocking fact that one or two children are murdered every fortnight in this country, almost always by a close family member.
We need to counter that shocking statistic in all sorts of ways, not least by paying child protection workers a lot more, but the debate is about more than that: it is about whether we need to think about children differently and give them far more prominence. By definition, children are powerless, because they have no vote. Usually, that means that they also have no voice—but the Bill can allow them to be heard and give them a presence where it matters.
The Bill is widely supported. Last year, every Member of Parliament must have felt the power of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children campaign, with thousands of constituents supporting the measure when it was a ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Eric Forth: I am always curious when an hon. Member claims that a Bill has "wide support". How much support does the hon. Gentleman estimate that the Bill has here today?
Mr. Dawson: I will come to that in a minute.
Any serious observer of the progress of work on children's rights over the four years of this Government, and anyone who participated in the debates on the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, will be aware of the support for these measures. We regularly see in our post that many people are concerned about this issue.
Mr. Forth: Where are they?
Mr. Dawson: The Bill has well over 100 Back-Bench supporters in the House, who regularly sign early-day motions.
Mr. Forth: Where are they?
Mr. Dawson: We all know how easily the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill passed through the House only a few weeks ago.
Mr. Forth: Yes, but where are they?
Mr. Dawson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who is so rudely setting a poor example by his barracking, would like to note the presence in the Gallery of young people from Article 12, the British Youth Council—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) must stop making sedentary interventions—he has made his point, I think—and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) should be aware that we do not refer to people in the Gallery.
Mr. Dawson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Anyone who wants to join me later to meet some fine young people will be extremely welcome—including the right hon. Gentleman.
Many Members are not here today—let us deal with this point before it is laboured any further—because of unbreakable commitments made when they perhaps thought that the county council elections were going to be high on the agenda. I have had many apologies, in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who has supported the concept of a children's rights commissioner for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), who came to see the importance of this measure through her private Member's Bill, which became the Protection of Children Act 1999, has also been a good supporter of this measure.
Everyone—with perhaps one solitary exception—knows that this is a good, important, worthy and timely Bill. It is time for children's voices to be heard and their rights recognised. I would like to thank Peter Newell—who wrote the Bill—Unicef, the NSPCC, Save the Children Fund, all the children's organisations that support the Bill, Article 12 and the young people who are here today. There is one young people's organisation that glories in the name Young and Powerful. Who in this House would not want to be young and powerful?
Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that, with one exception, everybody supported the Bill. I am not sure whether that is entirely correct. Will the Government facilitate the passage of the Bill by proposing short speeches to ensure that it gets a Second Reading and rushes through Committee as quickly as possible?
Mr. Dawson: That is a matter for the Government, rather than me.
Above all, I wish to thank young people from the Lancashire In Care group—lots of whom will be parents themselves now—who, 14 years ago, said to me that a children's rights commissioner was needed to make sure that the UN convention on the rights of the child really worked. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. I could stop speaking now, but I will not. Some young and powerful people have got a lot older waiting for the Bill and it is time we started to put that right.
We should acknowledge that the Government have been good for children. The pledge to end child poverty in a generation is inspiring. The working families tax credit, the children's tax credit, the children's fund and economic and employment policies to help families lift themselves out of poverty will improve the lives of millions. On a smaller scale—but one where needs are perhaps most acute with regard to children in care—there has been major investment, a commitment to children's rights and quality services, new legislation for those leaving care and better fostering and adoption services. The work of the Government is transforming what was a shoddy and sometimes horrific disgrace of a system into a decent and proper system for children living away from home.
So much more could be described, but one other initiative should be emphasised. Last July, the Government announced their decision to establish a Cabinet Committee on children and young people's services and a children and young people's unit, as well as the appointment of a Minister for young people. In November, we had the launch of the children and young person's unit, whose remit includes developing, refining and communicating the Government's overarching strategy for children and young people. That is first class; it is joined-up policy for all the 11.3 million children under 18 in England. Good joined-up policy for those children is exactly what the children's rights commissioner will be setting out to promote.
I am sorry to say this because it will appear rude, and I certainly do not wish to be rude to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). I am second to no one in my admiration of my hon. Friend's work; he has ably and determinedly piloted fine legislation to establish a children's rights director for 58,000 children in care and many others living away from home. However, he is not the Minister with responsibility for 11.3 million children living in England; he is not the Minister with responsibility for young people; and he is definitely not the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The absence of the Minister with responsibility for young people from a debate that is essentially about assessing the impact of policy on all young people, and about involving all young people in developing the overarching framework for all young people, points to the real problem in what I anticipate will be the response to today's debate.
The fact that the reply will come from the Department of Health, rather than from the children and young people's unit, points to a crucial misunderstanding of something that we need to get right. The independent
608
office of children's rights commissioner is a service for all children, not just those especially needy children who are looked after by the state.
Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the absence of the Minister of State, Home Office might give us a clue as to the enthusiasm or otherwise of the Government for the Bill? What does he propose to do to try to persuade the Government to support his Bill? Has he had any contact with the Government to establish their attitude to the Bill?
Mr. Dawson: I am well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for children's rights, democracy and citizenship. If he bears his impatience for a little longer, he will hear my answer to his questions.
No one will ever convince me that the Government, who are so good on so many things, are good at presentation. One of the more bonkers assertions of the Conservative party is that new Labour is all spin and no substance. In the Children's Commissioner for Wales, we see a post that even this week is beginning more and more to resemble the one set out in this Bill. Even in the wake of the Waterhouse report, the Government initially set themselves against the key recommendations to establish a children's commissioner arguing that it was enough to have a children's rights director for children living away from home.
Subsequently, we had the most welcome proposals for the Children's Commissioner for Wales. However, all through every stay of the legislation in the Commons, the Government resisted calls to ensure that the Welsh commissioner should have a remit that included all services for children and which brought in all children receiving services. Last Tuesday, in Committee in another place, the Government agreed to table amendments to extend the role of the commissioner in ways advocated by others for months. Wales now has a substantial post, but we are left with the feeling that this has been dragged from the Government little by little, when they could have done it properly in the first place and, with some justification, milked the applause for the last 12 months. That is a substantial achievement but, frankly, it is hopeless public relations.
We should take a careful look at the Bill, which appears to make Ministers and their civil servants so timid. The independent children's rights commissioner for England would be known, at least by face, name and contact details, to every child in England. The commissioner would be the backstop, sweeper or guarantor when systems designed to protect children went wrong. He would not replace child protection procedures, but could be approached if they were not working. He would not remove the responsibility of local education authorities and schools to have effective anti-bullying policies, but could be involved if problems arose. He would not take work from the or ombudsman—or any ombudsman—but would probably it crease that work because he would make that person work better for children.
The commissioner certainly would not take away the need for organisations such as Childline; he would probably have to link effectively with Childline to provide a good telephone service and, no doubt, to develop a good e-mail service. He would not provide some bureaucratic, centralised complaints service, but would pass problems

609
efficiently to someone who could help. Who could deny the importance of that role? The gaps between existing services and the places where no one is listening to children are where they can literally die.
The independent commissioner would promote the participation of children in the issues that affect their lives—in school councils, young people's forums, advocacy groups, community groups, and groups at a regional and national level. There is a requirement on the recently established children's fund to support projects that originate from young people.
This proposal is a basic matter of citizenship. Listening to young people and enabling them to take action for themselves should be a key requirement on anyone who works with children. That is part of our international commitment under article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Some people may deny the importance of listening to children and young people, but surely not the Department of Health, which has pioneered the involvement of young people in working parties and in the work of Whitehall and surely not anyone in the House who has met young people at the all-party group for children in cane, who has been involved in the establishment of a United Kingdom Youth Parliament, who supports the Government's investment in a national voice for looked-after children, or who has taken part in Unicef's annual "Put it to your MP" day. They will have learned what I was well taught by young people 14 years ago: that children and young people know what they are talking about. They have knowledge of issues that Members of Parliament do not have, because they are closer to the problems or on the receiving end. They have a fresh perspective and insights that are to be valued and used.
The roof of the House has not yet fallen in, despite the fact that I have often echoed those sentiments, and nor will it if I contend that the real problem for Governments, of any persuasion, and their civil servants is that a children's rights commissioner for England would be an independent and challenging post. As the commissioner would have contact with the new voices of children and young people, and would give a voice to the powerless, they might just be radical, independent, challenging and at the heart of government and Whitehall. The walls are still not collapsing around us, and I do not think that they will.
The powerful post of commissioner would be at the heart of policy making, in regular contact with children and young people, working to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, producing an annual report on the state of England's children, preparing statements on the possible impact of new legislation on children, investigating matters of serious concern, reporting on the impact of policy on children, linking with other commissioners in the UK and abroad, and reporting to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The person would challenge even a good Government over some policies, such as those that give children less legal protection from physical assault than adults, or deny looked-after children the benefits of new leaving care legislation because they happen to be unaccompanied asylum seekers and their position is not yet resolved.
This has been a good Government for children, but they will be an even greater one if they dare to embrace the establishment of an independent children's rights
610
commissioner, linking with the Children's Commissioner for Wales and with the commissioners who are on their way in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Devolution is fine, but if we are not careful we will get left behind as those countries develop their own children's rights provision.
Mr. David Heath: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. Can he see any logical reason why England is intrinsically different from the other nations of the United Kingdom in this respect? What is the logic behind the Government's position?
Mr. Dawson: I am afraid that I cannot see any logic in the Government's position, and that is the whole gist of my speech. I sincerely hope that the Government will come to the logical conclusion that the Bill must be supported.
Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green): I do not want to introduce a tone of dissent, but does my hon. Friend accept that the complex and varied legal differences between Scotland and England on the age of consent is a clear distinction that may explain a different approach?
Mr. Dawson: No, I am sorry, but I do not. It is essential to have commissioners for children in those countries, and I applaud what is happening in Wales and what is on the way in Northern Ireland and down the road in Scotland. We plainly need linked offices so that people work together on issues that arise in those countries. As a patriotic person—I am sure there are a few patriots present—I do not think that England should be left behind.
I am mystified by the Government's approach, given that they are profoundly conscious of human rights. They have established the Disability Rights Commission, and have done great work on equal opportunities and race relations. I cannot understand why they are not keener to promote the independent advocacy of children's rights.
I suspect that some Members are worried about the impact of a children's rights commissioner, both on parents and family life. During the debate on the Welsh commissioner here and in the other place, Opposition Members tried to justify support for a children's commissioner who has nothing to do with ordinary families. That is plain daft. We should face that issue and deal with it properly.
Ordinary, decent parents have nothing to fear from a UN convention on the rights of the child that is compatible with the Children Act 1989 and emphasises that all decisions taken in respect of a child should be in the best interests of that child. The convention respects the rights, responsibilities and duties of parents. It expects, as far as possible, children to be cared for by their parents, recognises a right to family relationships, the right not to be separated from parents except by judicial determination and the right to family reunification.
What decent, ordinary parent would wish to deny their child the right to education, to play, or to freedom of expression, thought and religion? What decent, ordinary parent cannot bear to be challenged by the bright, new clamour of their young people who are finding their voice

611
and trying it out? Decent, ordinary parents or a good Government who aim to do their best for children have nothing to fear from, and everything to support in the Bill.
It would be good, proper, fair and just to support the Bill. It would be the finest thing to give it resounding support in double quick time to get it through all its stages in whatever time we have left in this Parliament. Whether or not the Bill goes much further, support today would send a signal. It would flag up a proposal for the manifesto and would give a clear message not only to 11.3 million children, but to their parents, relatives, friends, carers, teachers, social workers and children's campaigners—all those people with all those lovely votes—that the war of attrition, which is winning the day and will not go away, is at an end. I hope that the Government will establish a profoundly important, exciting, popular and challengingly independent office in the first few months of what the Bill could help to make a great second term. If they do not, we shall carry on fighting. Our cause is right, and it will eventually win the day. I hope that every Member present will support the Bill on Second Reading.
10 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I shall speak briefly in support of the Bill and of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). I regret that so many of the Bill's supporters are not here. In my view, they should have been.
Mr. Forth: Ah!
Mr. Bell: The Bill's opponents, of course, have every right to be here.
I cannot see that electioneering is much of an alibi for the Bill's supporters. We are here to make a difference. Politics is conducted not for its own sake, but for reasons. One such reason should be the effort to make less worse, where we can, the lives of those whom we represent. That includes children. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre and I have seen the conditions in which children live and suffer in many parts of the world, including Burundi. At home, too, however, there is neglect and deprivation. Here, too, children's childhoods are stolen. I see a real need for a children's ombudsman.
Should I decide to seek another term of office in this House, I shall, unfortunately, be opposed by a candidate from the hon. Gentleman's party, but I wish the hon. Gentleman well and hope that he is returned here. I see no possibility of the Bill reaching the statute book at present, but it is a good and worthy cause and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be in the next Parliament to carry it forward.
10.1 am
Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme): I must first declare several interests. I am a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, of a children's charity called Safe and of a children's fishing charity called Second Chance. Indeed, I had very much hoped to be fishing today: the delay in the election has kept me in the House to speak on this important Bill.
612
All our children deserve support and help, but some need it more than others, and some need it desperately. Usually, it does not seem nearly 15 years since I came to this House, but when I think of how attitudes towards children have changed, it seems more like a lifetime. Almost my first vote in Parliament was to ban the caning of children in schools. We won it by one vote, and I have often thought that if my by-election had been held a couple of weeks later than it was, children would still be caned in our schools. That was a barbaric practice.
When I came to Parliament, I knew nothing about the law. My Whips, as is their way, naturally put me on the Committee for a criminal justice Bill. It was there that my campaign for justice for children began. I discovered that children had virtually no right to be heard in our courts. In every criminal justice Bill thereafter, we took another step forward—on video links, the use of screens, evidence of absent children, competency, the swearing of the oath, corroboration of evidence and committal hearings. There was so much to change, and so much was changed.
The rights of children to be heard in our courts were hard fought for by many stubbornly determined Members of both Houses of Parliament. As I look back across the years, it seems incredible that we had to fight so hard for things that are accepted these days as only right and just. When we look back in a few years time, might we not think the same about a children's commissioner?
The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, ratified by the United Kingdom in 1991, and the Children Act 1989 are two of the most important statements that affect attitudes towards children. Having made those statements, and highlighted our
responsibilities, Parliament has maintained its commitment to improving children's lives. There has been legislation, including the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 and the Protection of Children Act 1999. There have been projects such as health action zones and sure start programmes, and money for our schools to improve the education of many neglected children.
There has also been much more cross-departmental co-ordination, and no one can deny the hard work put in by Ministers on the rights of children and on doing something more positive for children than any previous Government have done. The commitment of the Labour party to eliminate child poverty must be welcomed by all, for we all pay the cost of child poverty—the greatest single threat to the health and future well-being of our children.
There is, however, one commitment that we have not yet had from this, or any, Government—a commitment to a children's commissioner. We need a person whose sole duties are to speak out for children and influence legislation that affects them. Some years ago, when I spoke for children on the Opposition Front Bench, I raised many subjects that cut across Departments—children's play in safety, provision for children in hospital, bullying, residential care, child prostitution, runaways, adoption, accidents in the home, diet, food safety, punishment for children and child abuse. There was so much to consider and to report on, but no individual was in charge.
The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) fills that wide gap. There are many kinds of children's commissioner, and the recently published "Review of Effective Government

613
Structures for Children 2001", by those long-time fighters for children, Peter Newell and Rachel Hodgkin, should be required reading for us all. They recommend that a children's rights commissioner for England should be established with legal powers and duties appropriate to enable the office to monitor, promote and protect children's human rights. I could not put the case any better than that.
Among the many useful jobs that a commissioner could do, one of the most important would be to reach out to children through television, to let children know that he or she was there for them and that their voice, their fears and their hopes were being listened to not ignored. I like the idea of a warm, friendly, Father Christmas-type commissioner—though we must have him or her all the year round.
The Government—our Government and our children's Government—can make a real and lasting difference to the way in which legislation affects the lives of all our people, now and in future. The Bill shows the way. It deserves our most urgent and total support. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it before us.
10.8 am
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): It is a convention of the House that one should congratulate an hon. Member on coming high in the ballot, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) not only on that but on his commitment to his Bill and on his Second Reading speech.
I am afraid, however, that I cannot support the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will accept that, as a father, I am totally committed to looking after children properly. They should be loved and cared for. I hold in profound contempt, those who abuse and mistreat children and I strongly believe that they should be subject to the full rigour of the law. I served for a year on the child care commission convened by the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). I listened to the arguments—with, I hope, an open mind—and tried to move the debate forward so that we could help children in a consensual way.
None the less, I have grave doubts about the Bill, which I shall share with the House. It is too blunt an instrument, which is why, I suspect, the Government are worried about it. The House should be aware of four aspects in particular. First, contrary to what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said when he attempted to address the point, there is a possibility that the Bill will infringe the rights of parents. Those rights were discussed in the other place on 3 April, during consideration in Committee of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. Lady Young and many others made passing reference to such issues. I know that if the present Bill goes into Standing Committee, the details can be considered and amended, but I am worried that, as drafted, it does not state that particular regard should be given to the rights or responsibilities of any parent or guardian who is affected by the actions of the commissioner. That is an important matter.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby): Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to state in which clause the rights of parents are specifically ignored?
Mr. Leigh: The rights of parents are not specifically ignored by the Bill. As the hon. Member for Lancaster
614
and Wyre made clear, no one would introduce a Bill that stated specifically that the rights of parents would be ignored. I fully accept that a commissioner would not, on day one, invade the rights of good parents—that point is well taken. However, the fact is that there are infinite grey areas and in the unlikely event of the Bill becoming law, I fear that cases would arise that caused a commissioner, for any one of several reasons, to start to interfere in family life. I believe that if the Bill becomes law, an amendment must be made that is similar to the one that was proposed in the House of Lords to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, which would specifically ensure that particular regard was accorded to the rights and responsibilities of parents.
Mr. Mark Todd: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of what he means by interference in the rights of parents and families?
Mr. Leigh: There is a good example. Let us say that a parent believes that he has the right to chastise his child, which is a controversial matter—many Members of Parliament believe that parents should not be able to slap their children—and that it becomes a more pressing issue. If the Bill were passed, the commissioner would be able to intervene in the case of a parent who chastised his child. I agree that the issue is controversial and I accept that there might come a time when Parliament, on a free vote, decides to prevent children from being slapped by their parents. I would not vote for it, but I recognise that there are some who might promote such a Bill, and if Parliament in its wisdom so decides—as it decided, against my wishes and despite my voting against it, to end corporal punishment in schools—I would accept that decision as one that had been freely taken by a free Parliament. However, I would not accept the creation of the post of a commissioner who could try to advance that process, which I believe will become a real possibility if the Bill is passed as drafted.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) asked for an example and I have given one of the first of four areas that cause me and many others concern. If a serious proposal is made to get the Bill or one like it on the statute book, we have to get it right. The Minister must give an assurance that his support for the Bill, either now or in future, is conditional on our having a serious debate on the rights of parents.
My second concern is that the taxpayer might be asked to fund the children's rights movement through the provision of a commissioner. The Bill is supported by a long list of organisations, including Epoch—End Physical Punishment of Children—the National Children's Bureau, Antidote, the Campaign for Emotional Literacy, the Council for Education in World Citizenship, the International Association for the Child's Rights to Play, Barnardos, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Stonewall. The Bill makes provision in clause 9(1)(d) for the commissioner to hand out taxpayers' money to
"give financial or other assistance to any organisation for the purpose of encouraging the promotion by children of the interests of children."
It is common for children's rights groups to promote their agenda by setting up groups that are said to be run by children for children. Some such groups may be worth while and others may promote views that I would not

615
support—but I am not persuaded that we should pass a Bill that would open the door to a considerable increase in public funding of those lobbying groups.
My third concern is about the power to litigate. The House should be aware that the Bill is wide-ranging and has the potential to make a considerable impact. It is not just some little Friday-morning Bill of the sort that often wends its way gradually through the legislative process, which most people think is fairly harmless, and which is opposed by few—perhaps only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It is a serious and important Bill that provides a power to litigate. Clause 10 gives the commissioner an extraordinarily wide power to interfere
"Where the Commissioner considers it necessary or expedient … in any legal proceedings".
Clause 9(1)(b) empowers the commissioner to arrange legal representation on behalf of a child. Together, those powers raise the prospect of wide-scale legal interference, potentially with parental rights. Other bodies concerned with children, especially schools, might also find themselves on the receiving end of litigation that is conducted or financed by the commissioner at taxpayers' expense.
Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that in the Children Act 1989, the Government of whom he was a member abolished the concept of parental rights and replaced it with that of parental responsibility?
Mr. Leigh: To be honest, I was not aware of that, but I cannot believe that anything done by the Conservative Government whom I supported would have seriously compromised the rights and responsibilities of parents.
A series of Acts dating back more than 100 years has ensured—naturally enough—that parents do not have complete authority over their children. If a parent burns his child, inflicts cruelty on him, sexually abuses him, or treats him badly in other ways, that parent will be brought to court. Governments in civilised societies have rightly established a legal framework that ensures that there are no such things as absolute rights of parents. However, a balance has to be struck.
No one is suggesting that there is anything profoundly wrong or evil in the Bill—everybody accepts that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has produced his Bill with the best of motives. Our point is that such Bills gradually extend the boundaries. One moment one lives in a society in which every sensible person accepts that parents hold ultimate responsibility and are in charge; then, almost without realising that a change has occurred, one suddenly finds that the emphasis has shifted from parental rights and responsibilities to the rights of the child, and that the latter have become superior to the former. That might not be what the hon. Gentleman intends, but the Bill has that potential, and that causes us concern.
My fourth area of concern is the power of legislative scrutiny. The Bill requires Ministers to have regard to the views of the commissioner on any legislation that affects children. That would give extraordinary power to an unelected official—the commissioner would be unelected—and provide vast opportunities for children's
616
rights advocates to meddle, via the commissioner, in the drafting of family law and education law, among other things. The Government would have to have regard to the commissioner's views on any legislation concerning children. That is an extremely wide provision.
I shall paraphrase some of the points made by Lady Young and others in the other place on 3 April. The matter was summed up sensibly in the observation that, in the past, we lived in a society where the main justification for protecting children was that they were different from adults—they were obviously immature and vulnerable and therefore needed parental protection. Parents had to educate their children, supervise them and correct them if necessary, so that when the children grew up and became adults they, too, would be able to continue that tradition of looking after the most vulnerable people in society. That was the traditional point of view and I suppose everybody accepted it.
One cannot deny that there has been a switch—it can be seen in conventions, in Bills such as this and in points of view expressed in Parliament—from the traditional point of view to a theory based on the assumption that children are individuals and have a right to exercise their own choice and to have self-determination in all aspects of their life. That view is put forward by a number of people. I shall not get into that debate, but I note those conflicting points of view.
Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not leave that point too quickly. Has he considered that, in this country, we require children to remain in education until they are 16, which suggests that we have made a judgment that they need education until they reach that age, so as to mature their judgment? Furthermore, we choose not to give them the vote until they are aged 18. Again, that suggests that they are not able to make a judgment—certainly as voters—until they are 18. Is my hon. Friend prepared to accept that those two long-established provisions suggest that, so far, we have made a collective judgment that children, aged under 16 or under 18, are not yet able to mat e full and mature decisions on a wide variety of matters?
Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend is right. There is an element either of hypocrisy or of pick and choose in the movement for children's rights. No one seriously suggests that a child aged 12 should have the right to demand not to go to school or to be educated. As my right hon. Friend points out, no child has the right to vote before they reach the age of 18, so society severely circumscribes the freedom of children.
Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the work of the children's rights commissioner would be based on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which—as I have already said—give; children the right to be educated and the right to family life but which certainly gives them no right to opt out of either?
Mr. Leigh: I shall refer to such conventions in a moment to describe how they constantly broaden the parameters. It is important that when we discuss Bills such as this, we have a grown-up argument about those matters and that we do not claim that one side is entirely

617
right and the other side is entirely wrong; there are grey areas and I shall try to explore them. However, of course the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I accept it.
After my description of the two arguments, it will be obvious—if it was not obvious before—where my views lie, for what they are worth. It is unfortunate that, under the Bill, parents are left out of the commissioner's remit. After all, there have been cases where children have been removed from parents for the wrong reasons. In the Orkney children's scandal in 1991, nine children aged 8 to 15 were taken from their beds by police and social workers.
Before that, there was the Cleveland fiasco, which arose from an excess of zeal on the part of the local authority. Sir William Utting said of that case that
"the rights of children and the rights and responsibilities of parents prove mutually supportive."
He hoped that view would prevail in future.
There have been cases in which an over-zealous bureaucracy, even equipped with the existing law, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre considers inadequate, has over-intervened.
Mr. McCabe: I am following the hon. Gentleman's point with interest. Perhaps the Cleveland case is a rather poor example of over-zealousness. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that, with hindsight, the number of children involved in that inquiry who were subsequently re-admitted to care suggests that it nay have been the media attention on Cleveland that was wrong rather than over-zealousness on the part of the key agencies? I do not object to the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he think that Cleveland offers the best example?
Mr. Leigh: Perhaps some of the decisions taken at Cleveland were right, although the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is held in high regard in the House, may hold a different point of view from that expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I do not claim to be an expert on that case; it might have been right for the local authority to intervene in some instances. However, my point is that there have been desperately sad examples when it was wrong to interfere with the rights of Parents.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that children's rights also involve the right of a child to have contact with a parent and that, on occasion, that right is denied? Does he acknowledge that one of the functions of a children's rights commissioner might be to assert that right on behalf of a child, considering the matter solely from the point of view of the parent's rights?
Mr. Leigh: No one in this place has tried harder than me to promote the concept of the desirability of children retaining contact with both their parents—especially after marital breakdown. It is a sad fact of our society that, with the increase of marital breakdown and fathers leaving home, a high proportion of children lose contact with their parents. Of course, I accept that it is entirely desirable that society tries to promote the view that "families need fathers"—to cite the name of that organisation. The debate is on the right way to achieve that. Should it be by consent
618
and by ensuring that it is encouraged by the practices of the Child Support Agency and the law? Should it be by creating a new post so that a commissioner can intervene—possibly in a heavy-handed way—in a difficult emotional situation, when, for example, the mother believes that the father has an extremely damaging influence on the children? Would the matter be satisfactorily resolved by giving over-arching powers to the commissioner to interfere in those difficult family situations, instead of leaving it to the family courts, which have great experience of such cases? I am a banister. I have sat in family courts. We sit around a table—there is no question of a courtroom; the magistrate and the judge, even the justice at the High Court, all take those matters extremely seriously. One should not assume that society is not already experienced in dealing with such issues.
For all those reasons, and contrary to the disingenuous reply of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre to my intervention, the Government—as I understand it—do not support the Bill. However, if I am wrong, I shall be happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to assure me of the Government's support for the measure. I think that the Government do not support the Bill—not least because during debates on a similar Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre last year, the Minister said:
The Government are not convinced that it would be desirable to create a new national mechanism additional to the courts, the police and the prosecuting authorities, the various existing commissioners, including the Parliamentary Commissioner and the health and local government ombudsmen, the responsibilities of local and health authorities to deal with complaints, and the various inspection and regulatory arrangements for ensuring that safeguards for children are properly implemented and that their voices are heard."—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 930.]
If the Minister has changed his view, I shall happily give way to him. However, I suspect that he has not. He expressed the sensible view that the existing arrangements are satisfactory.
There was an interesting debate, which I have looked up, in the Welsh Assembly. I know that not many hon. Members take the trouble to look up the debates in the Welsh Assembly, but it was a perfectly serious debate, in which Mr. David Melding, on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, expressed concern that parents' rights would not be taken into account sufficiently.
I shall briefly quote the amendment that Baroness Young tabled to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill:
"Clause 2, page 2, line 14 at end insert—
(2) In exercising his functions, the Commissioner shall have particular regard to the rights and responsibilities of any parents or guardians of children to whom this Part applies."
I should be very happy to give way to the Bill's promoter if he would now like to intervene to tell me that he would be prepared to propose that such an amendment should be inserted in his Bill. Sadly, he does not seem to be willing to do so.
We shall see how the Bill progresses, but if it is debated on Report, I will want to move such an amendment. I am afraid that I have to tell the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that, in all honesty, if on Report he were not prepared to accept such an amendment, I would certainly not be prepared to support the Bill, or to facilitate its passage through Parliament, for the reasons that I have given. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but that happens to be my view.

619
We are told that the commissioner's role would be to promote the welfare of children, so it seems entirely logical to require the commissioner to work with parents and families. After all, surely the family environment is vital to the child's well-being, and all I urge the commissioner to do, if he becomes a statutory being, is to support parents and encourage them to be responsible for their children.
A series of international conventions and treaties has been mentioned. In 1948, for example, article 26 of the universal declaration of human rights established the "prior right" of parents in relation to educating children. The declaration has been widely cited in the House as the benchmark, the model on which we have created subsequent human rights legislation. In 1959, the declaration of the rights of the child made numerous references to parent-child relationships, including in principles 6 and 7, which state that the child should
"where ever possible grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents".
For all those reasons, I hope that we can always promote any such legislation in the context of the 1948 universal declaration of human rights, which—this is a very important point—established the prior right of parents.
If hon. Members think that what I suggest will not happen, I remind them that I made numerous interventions and speeches in debates on the Human Rights Act 1998, saying that it might affect the rights of Church schools, for example, but the Government told me not to worry because that would not happen. Yesterday, I picked up the Glasgow Herald, and saw a huge front-page article headlined, "Catholic school system taken to court" and "Parents challenge right to deny a place". It said:
"Nathan's father, Iain Mackay, a business analyst with Scottish Widows, has taken the case to Cameron Fyfe, a Glasgow solicitor, in a bid to have the council's decision overturned. Mr. Mackay is arguing that his son has been discriminated against because he is not a baptised Catholic."
Nathan has been prevented from entering a Catholic school. When we gave all those warnings, we were told, "Don't worry. This is a human rights Bill. It will only affect bad people." I am talking about the heart of the Scottish education system, built up over a century—the right of Catholic schools to insist that Catholics have the prior right to join them—but now the school is taken to court. That is what we worry about.
Worthy Bills are introduced and legislation is enacted, and people use it. These things do not exist in a vacuum, and often people with very limited resources are taken to court. I have mentioned a Catholic school, but it could easily have been an Anglican school or a Jewish school. We live in a society where there are all sorts of different views and people, and we regard some views as completely zany. There was an obituary in The Daily Telegraph this morning of the man who was the chairman of the Flat Earth Society. All his life, he believed that the earth is flat.
Mrs. Golding: Well, isn't it?
Mr. Leigh: He had the right to his view. If religious parents or other people have a particular point of view,
620
we should not use this place to hammer their views into the ground and say that they do not have a right to live their lives in the way that they choose.
Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that commissioners, of whom we now have far too many in any case, feel it necessary to justify their existence, their salaries, their staff and their budgets? The great danger with this commissioner—and, in this respect, he will be no different from any other—is that he will inevitably set about justifying all those things and, therefore, will probably extend the remit and activities way beyond anything envisaged even by the enthusiasts for the Bill and the commissioner.
Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre claims that the commissioner and the Bill are harmless, but that is not clear to me, and he did not really explain that to us. There were some fine words and a great peroration about looking after children, which we all accept, but he did not explain what is wrong with the existing system, where it is going wrong or what the commissioner will do. The fear is, of course, as my right hon. Friend says, that the commissioner will naturally want to extend his remit. That is how people in such organisations operate.
There is a very well-developed children's rights movement, and its aim is nothing less than the legal imposition of an entire philosophy that would affect the way in which we order our families. That may not be the hon. Gentleman's view, or that of any hon. Member in the Chamber—we are all very moderate and sensible people—but that is the view of some people in the so-called children's rights movement. Let me quote some of the things that they believe in:
"Parental responsibility should be defined in legislation so that children can call their parents to account if they do not deliver on their duties;
Every family should be ordered on democratic lines with parental authority requiring the consent of the children;
Parents should be required in law to take their children's views seriously and children should be able to challenge breaches of this principle in court;
Schools should encourage a children's right ethos, and education on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be introduced into the curriculum;
All children should receive sex education in schools and parents should no longer have the right to withdraw their children from classes for any reason;
'Gender stereotypes' should be eliminated from schools and feminist thinking should be reflected across the curriculum;
The validity and legitimacy of homosexual relationships should be promoted in schools;
A Commissioner for Children's Rights should be established on similar lines to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission to promote children's rights and to ensure that children have effective means of redress."
Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that unattributed remarks quoted at length, leading on from discussions about the Flat Earth Society, hardly do justice to the importance of the Bill, the aim of which is to protect children, to assist their participation in our society and to ensure that the Government pay due regard to the needs of children? He asked me directly why the post is needed. I can tell him from my direct experience of working with children for 17 or 18 years that the post is

621
needed because the views of children in this country are routinely disregarded, which does great harm to them and to families.
Mr. Leigh: I happen to have footnotes for all those points of view—I did not make them up—and I can go through the footnotes, one by one. They include Martin Rosenbaum, writing in an article entitled, "Taking Children Seriously". The previous statement was from "UK Agenda for Children", produced by the Children's Rights Development Unit. The one before that was a recommendation produced by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The one before that was, again, front "UK Agenda for Children", and the one before that from "Children's Rights & Childhood" by David Archard. I did not make any of those up—they were all written by someone, and I will send them to any hon. Member who would like them. There are people who are making those arguments, and there is no point in denying it. We may think that they are flat-earthers, but they believe profoundly in their point of view. They believe that the rights of children come before the rights of parents, and we should be very worried about that.
Dr. Whitehead: If I wanted entirely to discredit the movement to curb the EU's power or get Britain to leave it, I could quote some very unpleasant people with policies that have racist and fascist undertones.
Mr. Leigh: Of course there are extremists in every organisation. I am trying to explain to the House that there are several people who support the views that I have quoted. At the beginning of my speech, I listed the groups that support the Bill. They do not think that their views are extreme. They do not think that it is extreme to ban parents from smacking their children. They do not believe that it is extreme to place homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality in schools. They do not believe that schools should encourage a children's ethos. As far as they are concerned, they are not fascists, nasty people or anti-democrats.
Mr. Forth: They are just wrong.
Mr. Leigh: Yes. They will use the commissioner to promote their agenda. He or she may be a person of sufficient stature and strong will to resist that agenda, but if not, in 15 or 20 years we will have a very different ethos, and that worries me.
Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that his argument demonstrates the wider point that, although almost any hon. Member can come to the House with a Bill and quote in its support any number of organisations, not even well-established and respected organisations have a right to legislate, and our job is to judge wider interests? Quoting supporters or even opponents of a Bill is only part of the story, and our judgment must have a much wider range.
Mr. Leigh: Yes, we must use our judgment and common sense. In this matter, our common sense should tell us that existing legislation, which has been extended considerably in the past 10 years, is adequate to deal with abuse of children. Contrary to what the supporting organisations argue, we do not need the Bill.
622
The whole children's rights argument is built on the assumption that children are born innocent and good—I agree with that to a certain extent—so it follows that children do not need direction from their parents; they do not need correction, physical or otherwise, and it is scandalous that anyone should dream of making decisions for them once they can speak and act for themselves. I believe that the children's rights movement is wrong.
I agree with Charles Colson, writing in The Advocate, who said that we should be
"very cautious of recommendations decreasing the role of parents and increasing the role of the state in family life. God created the family as the basic unit of society and planned that truth would be passed from parents to children, from generation to generation."
That makes my point. In the same article, Brian Edwards says:
"Long before a child thinks about murder, contemplates the passing pleasure of adultery, understands the apparent advantage of stealing, learns to lie or yearns for the possessions of others, it struggles to break free from parental discipline. That is always the first relationship to be trampled upon, and therefore the first one that a child must learn to value. From this commandment"—
the fifth commandment—
"flows an attitude to a thousand people."
I happen to agree with that point of view, although not every hon. Member would agree.
Children need direction, and parents are in the best position to look after their children. The Bill is another attempt to chip away at the rights and responsibilities of parents. We must hold bureaucracy and social institutions accountable. Once they are passed, laws tend to achieve an awesome power in the hands of bureaucrats that Parliament never intended. For all those reasons, I oppose the Bill.
10.45 am
Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on introducing the Bill. He has done the House a service by giving us the opportunity to debate the children's rights commissioner.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that deciding whether to create a commissioner is important for our treatment of children and that existing law on the subject is adequate. However, the wonderful gift of retrospection tells us that 30 years ago, a great deal of child abuse took place in schools and other institutions. That was accepted at the time and the law was considered adequate. Society has since judged that such abuse is unacceptable, and the House has, on occasion, voted to end practices that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned, such as caning in schools. Humankind is constantly changing. The very point of the convention behind the Bill is to protect children throughout the world from all sorts of exploitation, and some such practices, such as sending children down coal mines or up chimneys, were banned in this country almost 200 years ago. We should never close our minds to the possibility of the need for legislation.
Unlike my hon. Friend, I have not worked with children, except in bringing up my own three. He said in an intervention that children's views are often disregarded, and I agree. I think of the children in my constituency, where leisure facilities and life chances, within the family and outside it, have not moved on much

623
since I was a young person there in the '50s. I sometimes despair of how our society treats young people. Going to villages and questioning young people is not a scientific way to do a survey; nevertheless, I have asked many young people what facilities they would like in their village. Of course, they say that they would like an ice rink or a bowling alley. We could not have those in every village, or indeed in any village in my constituency, but some nearby towns have such facilities in abundance, and children in village communities want the means to get to them. Even if there is transport, they may not be able to afford to use it. I know that we have thought about transport to and from schools, but we must consider giving children access to it for wider purposes.
Many children have nowhere to go at night. I despair because taxpayers spend billions of pounds, and have done for centuries, on public buildings that close at 4 o'clock in the afternoon when they are no longer needed for the use for which they were built. Agencies could intervene to make schools and other public buildings available to children for recreation.
Mr. Forth: I am familiar with the phenomenon that the hon. Gentleman is describing, but surely he agrees that we already have mechanisms for dealing with such matters. I think of school governing bodies, which have parental representatives, and local authorities, which we elect and which are accountable to us. Community by community, they are capable of making the decisions that he rightly highlights. Where does the commissioner come into all that?
Mr. Barron: People would be able to take their grievances and put their case to the commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the role of local authorities and school governing bodies. In my constituency, activities outside the usual school role of educating children take place in only a minority of schools. Access to schools is made difficult by the costs and the fact that they are cordoned off. Rotherham metropolitan borough council has just agreed a massive project under the private finance initiative to rebuild a large number of schools. It is in its second phase and I hope that the architects will design them so that those parts of the school that are used for educational purposes can be secured and locked up at 4 pm while other parts are available for use.
Young people need functional buildings to be available to them. Most, if not all, purpose-built youth and community buildings in my constituency are not open for young people to use on Saturday and Sunday nights. People write about young people hanging around on the streets and so on. I would not want to encourage them to be up at 10 pm if they have school the next morning, but Saturday night is different, and taxpayers' money has been used on buildings that are locked up. That makes no sense. Young people would love to use those buildings on a Saturday night when they have nothing else to do. Their views are often disregarded. I know that such arrangements would mean that people might have to work weekends, but people in industry have done that for years.
We need to consider the attitude to children in our society and their enfranchisement. They need to get a good start in life, because they are not getting it now.
624
Child poverty is a major issue throughout the world. I am pleased to be on the Labour Benches supporting a Government who are doing so much more than the previous Government to aid and develop children's rights and to attack child poverty in different parts of the world. I am also pleased that I can support a Government who do that at home. An announcement was made yesterday about the children's tax credit, and how it will apply from 1 April. Families who do not have people in work will not benefit from that, but more than 11,000 families in my constituency will. The Government are doing a great deal. The major problems with child development relate to child poverty.
We have also done well on child benefit, which received its single biggest increase two years ago. That has had a positive impact on families suffering from child poverty. We could do no better than to keep thinking about the issue. The other side of the coin is the link between poverty and health. The South Yorkshire Coalfields health action zone covers the boroughs of Doncaster and Barnsley as well as my borough.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am hesitant to stop the hon. Gentleman, but he is straying wide of the subject.
Mr. Barron: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I am trying to do is put the commissioner in the context of how we treat children in society. A commissioner would be there when things broke down. Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for two years will know about the problems that people who are responsible for children in their families encounter in doing that job well. In particular, children in care are not getting the assistance that they should.
The commissioner would be the voice for children and would ensure that Governments respond to vulnerable people in society. That is what commissioners throughout the world are doing. Children are very vulnerable—sometimes within the family, and we have heard examples of that. They are also vulnerable as a group in society, which is why I mentioned the way in which they interact with us and society as a whole. They are disadvantaged. The commissioner would not necessarily take direct action. There are some aspects of the Bill that I need convincing about, but the commissioner would ensure that legislators or those who deal with public expenditure for health action zones, for example, always bear it in mind that children have rights. We need to ensure that legislation takes that into account.
I am concerned about clause 10, which gives effective legal powers to the commissioner. That seems to conflict with other legal powers for protecting children. Giving him that power rather than just a voice might clash with the role of other law enforcement organisations. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will consider that.
No matter what people say about the rights of parents, the history of child abuse shows that it has usually been committed by a close associate of the family. We cannot continue to satisfy ourselves that the family or society always look after the interests of children, because often they do not. We can all cite examples of how children are getting more of a voice, but we could give many more that show that they are still disadvantaged.
By introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend is furthering the debate on the development of our democracy and how it can be more inclusive for children. Although the

625
Government might not be entirely in favour of it, as the debate progresses in the next few weeks they might find that we are laying the grounds for ensuring that children get the protection and enhanced rights that they deserve. I am pleased to be here this morning to support the Bill.
10.58 am
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): And I am very pleased to be here this morning to oppose the Bill most vigorously. It is an unfortunate example of the modern phenomenon of motherhood and apple-pie legislation in which high-minded and good thoughts, aspirations and wishes are brought before the House in a spirit of good will. I always carry with me a quote from Sir Winston Churchill. I have shared it with the House before, and it is relevant to this debate. In addressing the Select Committee on Procedure in the House in 1931, Sir Winston said:
"I am not very anxious to help private Members' Bills. I have seen a great many of them brought forward, and in most cases it was a very good thing that they did not pass. I think there ought to be a very effective procedure for making it difficult for all sorts of happy thoughts to be carried on to the Statute Book."
I am guided by those words by no less a figure than Sir Winston in my approach to private Members' Bills, of which this is a very good example.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to advise me which particular child-oriented legislation he has supported during his time here as a Member?
Mr. Forth: I have probably inadvertently supported quite a lot if it were introduced by my Government, of whom I was a modest member for about nine years. Certainly, as a Minister for five yeas in what is now the Department for Education and Employment, I probably did not introduce any legislation in the sense that the hon. Lady means. I was largely responsible for the special educational needs code of practice, and that would have had a bearing on children and their welfare. Therefore, I am not ignorant of the matter. However, I certainly would not have supported such a Bill, and I am about to explain why.
The first problem with the Bill is that it seems to rely heavily on a United Nations convention. I believe that United Nations conventions are largely irrelevant to this country, to our society and to our legal structure. I spent five years as Member of the European Parliament—not something that I often admit to in public—and I cannot deny that. As a Member of the European Parliament, operating mainly in Strasbourg—which I enjoyed very much—and in Brussels, I became used to the rather foreign concept of aspirational legislation. The United Nations is a past master at that. At strange international forums, such as the European Parliament and the United Nations, many well-meaning and usually rather highly paid people get together in a rather congenial atmosphere, have good meals and wind one another up to pass declarations on this, that or something else. Those declarations usually take the form of conventions that express very high-flown views indeed.
The problem with the European context and the global international context of the United Nations is that the declarations are rarely carried forward into reality,
626
because they rely inevitably on each individual member state, each sovereign country and each nation state—something in which I believe with great passion—carrying through the aspirations into reality. Something like a United Nations convention—which is obviously much favoured by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and the Bill's supporters—has no relevance to this country unless we decide that it should have. Simply to argue that we signed the United Nations convention is not sufficient; of course, we signed it because we did not want to look like the bad guys. Successive Governments sign up to all sorts of conventions without any thought as to their relevance to our society and our way of life.
Mr. Dawson: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he not accept that successive Governments have put considerable resources into making reports to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on their success in implementing the UN convention? Does he not accept that the point behind having the post that would be created by the Bill is to ensure that the UN convention holds sway and works across this country?
Mr. Forth: No—of course not. Everybody loves to make reports; that is all part of the mutual self-congratulatory process. We all go to these meetings, we all sign the conventions, we have a good meal, we collect our expenses, we come home and we feel good about ourselves. Governments sign up to conventions so that they can say that they have signed up to them, but none of that is relevant.
We are talking about making real law that affects real people in their homes, communities and schools. That is the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned a moment ago. What really matters to children is whether their school building is available to them in the evening. What is really important to parents is the extent to which they, in their daily struggle over the breakfast table and in the evening, have to make endless judgments about whether their child has the sufficient maturity and judgment to go out in the evening unsupervised or to go to school on his own. That is the reality—not a United Nations convention.
For goodness sake, what do people in the United Nations know about the problems that parents in Chislehurst, Rother Valley or any other constituency face? Absolutely nothing whatever. Most of the people in the United Nations are not only foreigners but diplomats. If there is one combination that is utterly irrelevant to our daily lives, it is the combination of foreigners and diplomats. Let us put aside United Nations and European Council conventions right from the outset. Let us accept that they have no relevance whatever to parents and children in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to the next driving force behind the Bill in his opening remarks. It is the modern search for a risk-free society. In our strugglings here, we now seem to want to eliminate risk from every element of our daily lives. The difficulty that I have with that is that it does not recognise the daily judgments that we have to make about balancing risk against reality and against what must inevitably arise in our daily existences. That can take many different forms.

627
This is only a brief digression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am often amused by, for example, the argument against boxing as a sport, because of the harm that it may cause to its participants. That ignores the fact that more people die from horse riding, playing rugby or climbing mountains than ever die in the boxing ring. Yet people want to reach immediately for what is easy and visible and say that we should ban something that creates harm or risk.
I could offer to hon. Members a risk-free option, and I ask them to contemplate it. One of the ways of eliminating the risk of someone committing a murder for a second time is to hang or execute him after he has committed the first murder. There is a risk-free option for you. I bet very few Labour Members would sign up to it, because, in their balanced judgment, they would probably say, "I am prepared to accept the risk that someone already convicted of murder might do it again inside prison or if he escapes or is wrongly released rather than take his life." That is a judgment and I respect it even though I do not agree with it.
Most hon. Members here would probably want to sign up to the Bill because the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said that it might help to reduce or eliminate the risks to children. If one puts the words "risk" and "children" together these days, one gets an apparently almost irresistible force. Well, I am going to resist it, because I do not think that it makes any sense. Of course, we must strike a reasonable balance in society—we always have done for as long as there has been civilised society—between the freedoms that we try to give to people as individuals, parents, family members and as members of groups and societies and the element of risk that may exist. The problem that I have with such a Bill is that it would tip the balance completely the wrong way for a well-motivated, but wrong-headed reason.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre touched on the whole business of listening to and respecting the views of children. I doubt that somehow; I do not that think that we should. Certainly we should listen as parents, as teachers and as people who have direct dealings with children and young people and are responsible for helping to mature, develop and educate them, but we should not listen in the sense that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
We are talking about children and that seems to mean anyone under the age of 18. The Bill does not make clear whether it is talking about three-year-olds, seven-year-olds, 11-year-olds or 17-year-olds, and I would have thought that a sensible distinction should have been made in that regard. However, the Bill does not do that; it talks about children as a generic blob.
Nevertheless, the question that we must ask ourselves is, what value should we place on the views that children express about important issues? Although this is bound to be misconstrued, I shall say it anyway because I am a risk-taking sort of chap. When asked what value should be placed on the views of children, my answer would be very little. By definition, young people are forming, maturing, developing, being educated and being influenced as they grow up. To that extent, their views are of relatively little value. That is why we set the voting
628
age at 18; that is way we have set an age of sexual consent; that is why we have set an age for compulsory education. Society decides that children up to certain ages are, almost by definition, incapable of making judgments to which we should give any weight whatever.
I do not accept the Bill's basic premise that children should have a voice. That is the type of soundbite and spin that have apparently become the main drivers of our legislative activity.
Mr. Dawson: I am slightly amazed, but could the right hon. Gentleman tell me how, when the general elections comes, he will justify to 18-year-olds in his constituency that he may be interested in their views now, but that he could not have cared less about them six or 12 months ago?
Mr. Forth: I would probably make the judgment on the basis of any individual discussion that I had with such a person, or on the basis of any representation that such a person cared to make. I certainly would not make it on a "mass" basis.
I concede, however, that life is full of arbitrary limits, and hurdles that must be leapt. We set the voting age at 18—I am not sure that I entirely agreed with that; I rather liked 21 when it was around—and thus made a judgment: we decided that when people reached the age of 18, regardless of their intelligence, maturity, education or anything else, they should have the vote. A long time ago, we made another judgment: that children should remain in education until they were 16, because until that age they needed to be educated. Those are reasonable judgments, made according to arbitrary limits, which I accept.
My answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the mythical 18-year-old is that I would have that discussion and make those points. The person concerned would either accept or not accept what I said, and would then decide whether or not to vote for me. I have no problem with that.
Mr. McCabe: I have been thinking about that wonderful image of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), in his younger days, addressing the Conservative party conference. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that was a totally worthless event, which we should utterly disregard?
Mr. Forth: I do not remember being swayed much by what he said, that is for sure. In that sense, I would not differentiate between that and any other political event—but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I rather agree with him.
Let me now deal with the role of commissioners. That is a concept of which we as a body politic seem to have become rather fond. It is odd, when we think back: do those of us who received their political education back in the 1960s and 1970s remember the commissars in the Soviet Union, or some of the more dictatorial states, of whom we were so critical—figures of power and influence who were able to intrude on people's daily lives? Whether a commissioner is very different from a commissar is an interesting question for debate and consideration, but we are now rushing headlong down a route towards having a commissioner for everything. We

629
have one in this very building, although I shall not digress into what people think about that. Now we are being asked to appoint yet another commissioner.
I shall not delay my analysis of the Bill much further—for these are just my preliminary observations: I shall come on to the Bill in a moment, and then I shall really get stuck in. This is just my softening-up process. I want, however, to make a general common about the concept of commissioners, which has bothered me considerably for some time.
Despite the wording of the Bill, with which I shall deal shortly, commissioners are largely unaccountable. They have enormous powers—the Bill seeks to give this commissioner substantial powers—and very large budgets. I shall dilate on the budget when I discuss the Bill itself.
I am worried about these people I am not comforted by the fact that we are allowing commissioners to proliferate in our society, and in our legal and statutory framework; I worry about it. I will resist the introduction of more and more commissioners, however well-meaning and well-motivated they may be and however much they appear to be constrained by the statutory framework that seeks to establish them. I remain co be convinced that commissioners add to the sum of human joy and benefit, rather than doing the opposite.
My final preliminary point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, whose knowledge of the law is vastly superior to mine. In this country we have, and are proud of having, an enormous body of statute law, common law, precedent, conventions and traditions that—the recorded versions, certainly—stretch back for the best part of 1,000 years. They serve us very well, and have been the envy of large parts of the world. Hon. Members familiar with Commonwealth countries, in particular, will know that the countries that have the honour and pleasure of being part of the Commonwealth—and have largely chosen to continue the tradition that we handed on to them, in a benign way—consider that combination of statute, common law and precedent to be beneficial and, in most cases, worth retaining.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley said that we must develop the arrangements and review them. That, indeed, is what parliamentarians are here to do, and—as Members know—I participate in the process as much as I can. I do not think that the position should be static; I merely say that as well as moving forward, I would like occasionally to move back. I would like to turn back the clock occasionally. I would like us to enact more repeals, rather than adding more and more to our body of law. I would like that to happen, in its place and where it is justified.
Rather than adding constantly to what is there, I should like us to take away from what is there. Perhaps we could get rid of some of these commissioners, instead of having more and more of them. There is a thought. Perhaps more private Members' Bills should be n peal Bills, rather than continually increasing the burdens of regulation and intervention. I live in hope.
That is why I approach the Bill with some trepidation. The long title, for instance, includes words such as "commissioner". I read phrases such as
"the rights and interests of children"
and
630
"the powers and duties of the commissioner",
and I blanch. I ask myself whether this is something with which I shall feel comfortable, and immediately suspect that it is not.
I then think that I may find some comfort in the text—that perhaps when I get into the Bill, it will not be as bad as I expected. When I start reading it, however, I realise that it is worse than my worst nightmare—for the Bill is a nightmare: it is the worst that one could expect.
The starting point is, I suppose, fairly logical: the appointment of the commissioner by the Secretary of State. Bills such as this always have to start with the Secretary of State, and usually finish with the Secretary of State as well. Perhaps that is inevitable; certainly it was the case when I was in government. I worked for a number of Secretaries of State, who were, of course, giants of infinite patience and infinite judgment.
Clause 1(2), however, states—I accept that this is designed to comfort us—that before recommending someone as a commissioner
"the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be appropriate."
We are already in interesting territory. Who would be the appropriate people? Would those on the list read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough be on the Secretary of State's list of people to consult? Are those the sort of people and organisations to guide the Secretary of State in his appointment of a children's commissioner? I hope not, but I fear the worst: I suspect that a lot of them would be, and no doubt there are more.
But the position is worse than that. Anyone who has had the privilege of being in government for any time at all knows that the word "consult" and the process of "consultation", which have entered our political vocabulary relatively recently, are in a sense rather false. How often were the Conservatives, when in government, accused by those who are now in government of engaging in a sham consultation process? Had we asked anyone at all? Who did we ask? When we asked them, did we listen? Did we pay any attention? Did the consultation process make any difference to what we were going to do anyway?
Apart from any other consideration, the number of people who would qualify to do a job such as this is probably fairly limited. In that sense, the consultation process is in itself almost predetermined. The Minister will know, and others will probably be aware, that nowadays anyone setting out to identify an appropriate commissioner or public sector body must immediately be concerned with gender, ethnicity, regionality, experience, relevance and so on.
Moreover, I suspect—we will come to this later—that the appropriate person would have to have legal qualifications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough suggested, it is difficult to see how the commissioner could fulfil the requirements of clause 10(a) without being legally qualified.
We can already see, then, that there will be severe constraints on the nature of a person who could come anywhere near qualifying for the job. It is in that context that I ask how relevant consultation would be, given that the matter would be severely constrained from the start.
The commissioner will be appointed for five years. He can resign, which I suppose is some small comfort. An even bigger comfort is that he can be removed by Her

631
Majesty in consequence of addresses from both Houses of Parliament, so there is at least an escape clause, for which I suppose we should be grateful, although the following provision states that, at the end of the term, the commissioner is eligible for reappointment, which is a bit of a disappointment.
Mr. Leigh: Has a commissioner ever been removed by Her Majesty after an address from both Houses of Parliament?
Mr. Forth: I cannot recall any such occurrence. It might be interesting to speculate, although, again, I will not dwell on the matter, about the circumstances behind the resignation of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools recently. He was not a commissioner, but he was a sort of equivalent person and eventually decided that he could no longer live with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, if I may put it that way. Such things can happen, although I cannot recall such a removal. I suspect that the provision would be redundant or otiose from the start, although it must be put in the Bill to give us a bit of reassurance.
Mr. Leigh: The answer, I think, is that no one has been removed. It is a uniquely powerful position. It is equivalent to being a canon of Lincoln cathedral, who cannot be removed and who is in office for five years. Therefore, Parliament has no control over those people.
Mr. Forth: I do not know where firearms come into this, but I shall leave that to my hon. Friend.
Dr. Whitehead: Is not an alternative interpretation that Parliament has done rather well in appointing commissioners because it has not removed any so far?
Mr. Forth: I wish that I thought that that were so. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not as reassured by what he says as he would hope.
The Bill states:
"The Commissioner may appoint such staff as he thinks fit to assist with the discharge of his functions; and any function of the Commissioner may be performed by any member of his staff authorised for that purpose".
We run into a difficulty. I shall return to this theme as I go through my analysis of the Bill, but straight away we run into the budgetary element, which has not been mentioned much so far; I think that it has been touched on, but it has not been mentioned much. We must pause. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred to it in passing. The Commissioner may
"appoint such staff as he thinks fit".
There are no constraints. Apparently, there will be no limit. Straight away, therefore, we have the possibility of a burgeoning bureaucracy appointed by the commissioner without limit.
Of course, it would not work that way because the Secretary of State would inevitably have to set some sort of budget, but one can imagine the commissioner corning to the Secretary of State and saying, "In order properly to discharge my duties, these onerous and important duties that are laid on me by the statute, I need more staff." One
632
can imagine that happening year upon year upon year. I can think of very few shrinking quangos, but I know of an awful lot of ever-expanding ones, not least the ghastly commissions and commissioners whom we already have, who seek endlessly to expand their remit, to expand their staff and to increase their role. Therefore, I am pessimistic about the implications for the taxpayer of clause 1(4).
Then, intriguingly, the Bill says:
"The Commissioner and the Commissioner's staff shall not be regarded as agents or sere ants of the Crown."
What status that gives them, I am not sure. Perhaps the Minister can advise us about where that provision would position the commissioner and his staff. He can be removed by Her Majesty in consequence of addresses from both Houses of Parliament, but a commissioner is not a servant of the Crown. Whether there is any conflict I shall leave for the Minister to ponder and perhaps to deal with when he replies to the debate. All that is not at all satisfactory.
When we get to clause 2, which seeks to set out the remit and terms of reference, we get into considerable difficulties. The Bill states that the commissioner shall
"seek to ensure that the rights and interests of children are properly taken into account by Ministers of the Crown".
That is an interesting one. How does the commissioner ensure that their rights and interests are properly taken into account by Ministers of the Crown? Can the commissioner demand to meet Ministers? Can he demand to see the advice given to Ministers? Can he second-guess Ministers? If he cannot do any of those things, how does that part of clause 2 work?
The provision states that the commissioner shall seek to ensure that children's rights and interests are properly taken into account by not only Ministers but
"government departments local authorities, other public bodies and voluntary and private organisations when decisions on policies affecting children are taken".
I see: so now the commissioner will have statutory involvement in private organisations and their decision making. Have we thought about the ramifications? Do we know how that would work in practice? Can we begin to imagine or envisage how the commissioner would set about seeking to ensure that
"the rights and interests of children are properly taken into account by … voluntary and private organisations when decisions on policies affecting children are taken"?
One can argue that almost any decision that anyone, be he in the public, private or voluntary sector, takes is bound to have some effect on children. It would be challenging to try to imagine a decision that did not have an effect on children one way or another. Therefore, that apparently innocuous clause carries within it interesting and worrying implications. Again, perhaps when he winds up the debate, the promoter of the Bill might want to give us his further thoughts on how he thinks clause 2(1)(b) would work in practice and what the relationship between the commissioner and private organisations would be, given the apparent breadth of the remit.
The clause then stares that the commissioner shall "promote compliance with the United Nations Convention".
I shall not bother too much about that. I do not think that we should comply will any such convention in any way as they are aspirational nonsense by and large. I suspect that most countries do not comply with most UN

633
conventions. They float about in galactic air and we all pay lip service to them but I suspect that, in most regards, we do not implement them, so I shall not dwell on that.
Clause 2(1)(d) states that the commissioner shall
"seek to ensure that children have effective means of redress if their rights are disregarded by any body referred to in paragraph (b)."
That "any body" includes Ministers of the Crown, so the commissioner will have the statutory obligation to ensure somehow that children have effective means of redress against a Minister. I want to hear the Minister's view on that matter. I suspect that, because he is a competent Minister and is very relaxed about the Bill, he will not be too worried, but speaking on behalf of those with whom he has collective responsibility, I wonder whether he has thought about or been advised on the implications of clause 2(1)(d) and how it would operate. If a Minister failed to take into account the rights and interests of children, how would the commissioner seek to discharge the responsibility to ensure that children had effective means of redress against that Minister?
Then we come to clause 2(2). Again, I will not waste time on the United Nations convention, but subsection (2)(b) says that the commissioner will
"maintain direct contact with children".
There are 11.5 million of them, so that is a pretty challenging part of his responsibilities. I do not know how that individual, however talented, busy or active, or whatever the size of his staff, will maintain direct contact with children in any meaningful sense.
The commissioner will also maintain direct contact with children's organisations. Perhaps we are back to the ones that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough listed. The commissioner will also
"pay particular regard to the views of children and … promote respect for the views of children throughout society".
I touched on that matter in my introductory remarks and I am not sure that I am impressed with that part of his responsibility, so I shall put that to t oat one side and come to subsection (2)(c), which says that the commissioner shall have regard to
"the need to ensure co-ordination between different bodies (including government departments)".
We are back to the Minister again. I would want to hear his views on that. How does the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre expect the commissioner to ensure co-ordination between different bodies, including Government Departments?
What role would the commissioner play? Would he sit on Cabinet Committees? Would he be party to the inner workings of government? If not, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot think how he could possibly ensure co-ordination between Departments. Goodness knows the Prime Minister has enough difficulty doing that, as does the Deputy Prime Minister. It is one of the most notoriously difficult aspects of government. In the context of foot and mouth, for example, how is co-ordination ensured between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Defence? The provision is verbiage. It is meaningless nonsense because it cannot be delivered.
One problem that I have with such Bills, which I regret now proliferate, is that they contain aspirational wording. They are a bit like UN conventions and conventions of the Council of Europe. People say, "We certainly want
634
co-ordination between Departments. We'll have some of that. Let's put it in the Bill and it will improve the lives of children." Unless the Prime Minister is to start taking personal responsibility for those matters as well as for foot and mouth, I do not see how that could be achieved. I hope to hear more from the Minister or the promoter about it.
Then we come to the difficult provisions. I shall not dwell on annual reports, because they represent the usual spin, nonsense and soundbites to which we have become accustomed. A lot of money would be wasted and the reports would probably take the form of a glossy publication carrying an attractive picture of the commissioner, probably with children. It might also carry pictures of Ministers, with children.
Mr. Dawson: Would the right hon. Gentleman confer the same description—irrelevant and glossy nonsense—on a report from the chief inspector of prisons?
Mr. Forth: Not necessarily. Some reports have substance and value, but the less glossy, the more important and substantial they are. The fewer pretty pictures, the more relevant they are, but I fear the worst here. I hope that we do not reach the stage at which we would be able to amend the Bill, but if we do we could table an amendment containing a codicil saying, "No pictures and no glossy covers." Then I might be slightly reassured, but I suspect that that will not happen.
Clause 4(3) takes us into the whole business of compliance notices, which is where the role of the commissioner becomes worrying. It would be one thing for the commissioner to be a symbol or a comforter, but he would be able to make recommendations in the form of a compliance notice in which he
"shall state his opinion as to the way in which the provisions of the United Nations Convention"—
that ghastly UN convention again—
"are not being complied with and what action should be taken to comply."
Now we are getting into much more intrusive territory and the commissioner could intervene much more directly, perhaps in families or with parents—who knows?—but certainly in institutions and bodies.
The Bill would oblige anyone
"at whom a recommendation is directed by a Commissioner"
to consider it and reply. Clause 5(3) states:
"The Commissioner may require a person at whom a recommendation is directed to furnish him with such information as may be reasonably be required".
The Bill begins to bite—the commissioner would have serious powers to require any person at whom a compliance notice was directed to furnish him with information. That is an intrusive requirement. It is not trivial; it is very important and I would want to resist it. At the very least, I would want some safeguard or an appeal mechanism to be set up to provide a balance of protection for the citizen against the commissioner.
That takes us back to my general point that, if we are not careful, we shall lose sight of the crucial balance between the well-meaning, well-intentioned commissioner with those ever-increasing powers, and individuals and private or public organisations. That balance is going seriously awry, and it gets worse. Clause 5(5) states:

635
"If the Commissioner has reasonable cause for believing that a person will not comply with subsection (4) he may … recover from that person any reasonable expenses incurred."
The commissioner would not only have power to require information, but would be able to charge or surcharge individuals with the costs of the process that he had initiated.
The Bill gets worse by the minute and I am very worried about it. Clause 6(1) states:
"The Commissioner may conduct a formal investigation for any purpose connected with the carrying out of his duties."
That would be bad enough, but subsection (2) says:
"For the purposes of that formal investigation the Commissioner may require any person who possesses documents or information relevant to … produce the documents … furnish the information in writing … attend at a specified time and place and give oral information."
The commissioner would have powers equivalent to those of a Select Committee of the House of Commons relating to persons and papers. If I may say so as a Member of the House, it is one thing for elected, accountable Members of Parliament, gathered together in the form of an all-party Select Committee and conducting their affairs in a proper way, to
"produce documents … furnish the information in writing … attend at a specified time and place"
but another for the commissioner, unrestrained and unaccountable, to be able to do that. I find it worrying.
Those are the lengths to which we are being asked to go to underpin the UN convention in the United Kingdom. That is where the Bill is leading us. Make no mistake about it: however well intentioned, we would end up with the commissioner summoning our citizens to attend and provide information. He would already have surcharged them and had their money and he would have had the information. Then he would summon them.
What is going on? What have we descended to? We start with well-intentioned ideas, but end up with such a provision. Let us make no bones about the fact that we would be right back with the commissar. This is Soviet Union stuff, or worse. Nothing in the Bill would make the commissioner any more or less constrained than a commissar in the old Soviet Union. Mr. Putin would be proud of us.
I am becoming less and less happy with the Bill as I go through it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you may be able to tell. I shall move swiftly past clause 7—what on earth child impact statements have to do with anything I do not know. Then we come to complaints procedures. One might have thought that complaints against the commissioner would have been allowed. If they had, I would have been slightly more reassured, but no. There is no appeal mechanism, no protection—nothing that would allow us to complain against the commissar and his activities.
Again, the commissioner would be allowed to make requirements of people. He would be given another power to be used in pursuit of his duties and he would be
"under a statutory duty to establish, operate or supervise any procedure for the consideration of representations or complaints".
That would not provide anything like a balance.
636
Against that background, we come to the great unspoken part of the Bill, which is blandly entitled "Other powers and functions". This is the money bit, which I want to discuss for a moment. Clause 9 refers to:
"Where the Commissioner considers it necessary or expedient for the carrying out of his duties".
That would give him total discretion as to the interpretation of his duties under the terms of the statute. He could "publish and disseminate information". We are back to glossies and pictures. The provision would give an apparently blank cheque to the commissioner to spray around the place the sort of misinformation that we have become used to from the Government. If the constraints on the commissioner are as ineffective as those on the Government, we will be inundated. We shall have from the commissioner endless glossy, substantial, thick documents with pretty pictures telling us all sorts of things, most of which we probably do not want to know.
It gets worse. The commissioner can
"undertake or assist (financially or otherwise)"—
the provision is quite explicit about that—
"the undertaking by other persons of any research".
So the commissioner is now a huge vat of taxpayers' money into which people who do research can dip.
I have some know ledge of that because, among my modest responsibilities at the then Department for Education, now the Department for Education and Employment, I had a research budget, and I know how they work. Officials have friends in the research community and, between them, they dream up projects that are put before the Minister. If the Minister is not very careful, those projects will be approved—because they are always well constructed, well conceived and sound good—and lead to large volumes of research. Usually, when that research is finally produced, it goes into someone's drawer and is never heard of again. Although such research involves a lot of money, potentially millions, the Bill explicitly states that the commissioner can commission it.
As the Bill goes on, we get into even deeper water. Clause 9(1)(c) states that the commissioner can
"give assistance to a child or a person acting on behalf of a child, which may include giving advice (including legal advice) or arranging for legal advice or for legal representation".
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough could tell me—although he is probably too modest to do so—that that rather bland provision could become very expensive very quickly. What would happen if the commissioner frequently decided to take counsel's advice? The bill for that could add up at al alarming rate. Although I have no doubt that that would all be very well justified, the bill for it would be huge.
It gets even worse The final kicker in all of this is clause 9(1)(d), which states that the commissioner may
"give financial or other assistance to any organisation for the purpose of encouraging the promotion by children of the interests of children."
So now the commissioner has an open cheque book to give any sum that he chooses to any organisation that manages to persuade him that it is doing a rather good job on behalf of children.
Given that the commissioner's whole remit is as stated in the Bill—to act on behalf of children—how often will he say no to those organisations? What would happen if

637
one of the peculiar organisations that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough described earlier or some of the more respectable ones presented an idea for a project—always, of course, in the interests of children—and said, "We need this money, and if you refuse us we will be out there telling people that you are letting children down." Will the commissioner say no? I doubt it very much indeed.
The implications of clause 9 are absolutely enormous and the sums involved are potentially gigantic. The provision encompasses publications, legal advice, assistance, money, hand-outs, donations and subsidies—but I did not hear very much about that from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre.
Mr. Leigh: We heard nothing about it.
Mr. Forth: No; we have heard very little.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the other side of the equation, and the fact that another party will be involved when all that expensive legal advice is taken and legal proceedings are initiated? The other party may be a parent, but it may also be a private charitable organisation that is not so lavishly funded and has to foot its own bill when it is so unfortunate as to be the opposing party in such a dispute.
Mr. Forth: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that very important point.
Mr. Leigh: The other party could be a school.
Mr. Forth: Yes. Potentially, the Bill will set one taxpayer against another, or all of us as taxpayers against each other. It is a very familiar and distressing phenomenon. As the Minister will know, that phenomenon is becoming distressingly frequent in the health service. If the matter involves a public body, taxpayers may end up having to find both sets of legal representation. That possibility arises under the terms of clause 9.
The Bill's attempt at a saving provision does not succeed at all, although in fairness—I want to be fair, as hon. Members would expect—clause 9(2) states:
"In deciding whether to give assistance under subsection (1)(c)"—
on legal advice—
"the Commissioner shall have regard to—
"(a) the availability of such assistance elsewhere".
The assistance could come from elsewhere, such as from lawyers acting pro bono or a public body such as citizens advice bureaux.
Subsection (2)(b) states that, in deciding whether to give assistance, the commissioner shall have regard to
"Whether in the Commissioner's opinion an important question of principle is involved"—
that is an interesting one, but I am not sure that it is that reassuring—or to
"what is in the Commissioner's opinion the most efficient and effective means for the discharge of his duties".
638
I do not think that that helps us very much either. Of course the commissioner is going to say, "It was the most effective and efficient way of doing it, honest, when I gave out all that dosh to all those people who came along and asked for taxpayers' money. Of course I thought that it was the most effective and efficient way. I am not going to say otherwise, am I?" Therefore, even the Bill's attempt to provide some reassurance to the taxpayer or the House does not succeed very well.
Then we come to clause 10, which I touched on earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough may have a view on this provision. It states:
Where the Commissioner considers it necessary or expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests or rights of children, he may—
(a) prosecute or defend or appear in any legal proceedings".
I am not sure what "any legal proceedings" means; I will need advice on it. Does that mean that the commissioner can barge into a courtroom, uninvited, and say, "I am here on behalf of the interests of children and I am going to prosecute or defend"? Does the provision mean that? That is what it says to me. I can read only what the Bill states.
That provision strikes me as being absurd. It also carries the implication—unless I am told that, nowadays, laymen can appear in a courtroom at will and perform the role of prosecutor or defender—that the commissioner will have to be a legally qualified person.
Mr. Leigh: I am afraid that clause 10(a) does mean that the commissioner can appear in any legal proceedings although he is not a principal party in those proceedings.
Mr. Forth: That is what I rather feared. I can only begin to imagine what implications such a provision has for our judicial system. I should have thought—unless I am otherwise advised—that it also suggests, as a matter of practicality if not law, that the commissioner would have to be legally qualified. That would be another constraint that I could add to the ones that I gave earlier, on gender, ethnicity, regionality, expertise, experience, probity and all the other ones. The commissioner will have to be legally qualified. I would bet that the Bill's promoter did not have that in mind when he drew up the Bill.
Mr. Leigh: The commissioner will not have to be legally qualified because he will be able to obtain extremely good and expensive advice from Queen's counsel who will appear for him in the proceedings.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that advice, but I am not sure that that is what clause 10(a) says. It states that the commissioner may
"prosecute or defend or appear in any legal proceedings".
Perhaps my hon. Friend is telling me—of course I defer to him in the matter—that that could be interpreted as someone who may appear on his behalf. That would get round the need for legal qualification. Perhaps I misunderstood that provision. However, as my hon. Friend said, there is a cost element to the provision. Then again, as the budget is unlimited, that does not matter.
The Bill goes on to say that the commissioner may
"in his own name make representations in the interests of children at any public inquiry".

639
Again, we have the image of the commissioner barging into a public inquiry and saying, "Oi, I have something here to say on behalf of children." He may be invited. He may have nothing to do with the matter. The inquiry may be taken by surprise, as the commissioner may or may not appear by appointment. Nevertheless, the Bill says that he will have statutory authority to make
"representations in the interests of children at any public inquiry held".
It does not say "to" any public inquiry, but "at" any public inquiry. Therefore, at his discretion, the commissioner has an absolute right of appearance at a public inquiry.
How far are we being expected to go in the Bill to give the commissioner those types of powers? Are we really suggesting that, starting as we did with the interests of children in the United Nations convention, we should end up with clause 10 with all its implications for powers, budget, money, intrusion, demands, requirements and compliance? Is that really where we want to take ourselves? I think not. The whole Bill is entirely misconceived.
Clause 11 says:
"If a Minister of the Crown proposes—
(a) to present a Bill which … significantly affects children; or
(b) to make a statutory instrument under any provision of an enactment where that provision significantly affects children he shall first consult the Commissioner."
That might not seem too unreasonable, but I suspect that there will be relatively few pieces of legislation that could have no effect on children. One way or another, most legislation will affect children, so the commissioner's diary will be very full of consultations with Ministers about the proposed contents of legislation.
Can a Minister say to the commissioner, "Well, I've heard what you've said, old boy, but I'm not going to act on it"? The commissioner will then be out there spinning furiously about how he advised the Minister that this or that measure was inadvisable in the interests of children but was ignored. That puts Ministers in a difficult position—deliberately. I am not sure that it sits comfortably with our constitutional arrangements or the accountability of Ministers to Parliament—not to a commissioner. If clause 11 were interpreted in the wrong way, it would be a novel and alarming development.
Clause 12(1) says:
"The Secretary of State shall with the agreement of the Commissioner produce a code of consultation".
Does that mean that the commissioner has a veto? I think so. If the Secretary of State cannot get that agreement, we cannot have the code. That is a powerful provision. Rather than saying that the commissioner shall have a reasonable input, it seems to suggest that he will tell the Secretary of State what to do. Are Secretaries of State, accountable as they are to the House, to be even more accountable to the commissioner? Incidentally, the Secretary of State will have appointed the commissioner, which implies a rather incestuous relationship. We know that such relationships can go rather wrong.
All in all, I am not sure that I am persuaded that the Bill is a very good idea. I think that I have detected the odd flaw. Fortunately, we have plenty of time, so I am hoping that, as the day winds on, my hon. Friend the
640
Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), the Minister and, ultimately, the Bill's promoter, will be able to answer some of my questions. I see the promoter nodding. He is obviously confident, and perhaps he will be able to persuade me, but he will have a bit of a job on his hands because I do not think that the aims of the Bill are well founded or relevant—and even if they were, it goes completely the wrong way about achieving them.
11.53 am
Mr. Mark Todd: I do not intend to detain the House for quite as long as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who certainly presented some telling points on amendments that might be made to the Bill. As a supporter of the Bill, I should be interested to hear his thoughts on it in Committee, where we might improve some of the clauses that he is worried about. I do not seek to defend the Bill line by line.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on promoting the Bill. In his four years in Parliament, he has established a tremendous record as a supporter of children's interests. The Bill is merely a further step in that. I also commend the Government on the many measures that they have taken to assist children: the children's tax credit; the working families tax credit; the child care credit; the substantial increase in child benefit; sure start; record increases in spending on schools; initiatives in pre-school and after-school care; and initiatives to protect children in care.
Probably the most consistent direction of change in the tax and benefit system over the past four years has been towards helping children, and especially children in poverty and those with working parents. That deserves commendation.
It is possible to argue that many of the changes are functional, improving the efficiency of our work force and parents' income, rather than focusing specifically on the well-being of children. They are likely to affect children's well-being, but are not entirely child centred. We need a child-centred strategy focused on an objective analysis of children's needs and on strengthening support for families while recognising the increasingly fractured and fluid nature of our society. We need objective monitoring and advocacy for children, which is what the Bill proposes.
Opposition Members have said that the right guardians for children are either existing public representatives or parents. That goes to the heart of whether we need a commissioner. We must recognise that strategies based largely on the work needs and income of parents neglect the needs of a minority of children—sadly, a minority about whom we hear all too often—who are not their parents' priority.
There was a tragic case in my county—not in my constituency—only recently, of a child murdered by one of her parents. It appalled people locally that that had happened, and that the family were known to social services. It seemed that an error by those concerned with the care of the child had led in part—we must always say that; the people responsible were those who perpetrated the awful crime—to the child's death. We read frequently of such shocking experiences.

641
Those who talk constantly about the rights of parents—I am a parent myself—must recognise that some parents do not have the well-being of the child at the heart of their relationship or at the centre of their life. We must recognise the need to protect against the extremes and the exceptions as a key facet of public policy.
It is clear that our social services are not always sufficiently resourced or trained to identify abuse and to protect the child. Our historical tolerance, as a society, of assault on the child under the protection of parental discipline makes child protection harder in this country. Distinguishing clearly between the action of a parent in correcting a child and assault on a child is a difficult task and one that is often hard to explain. The matter is clear to me, because I do not believe in assaulting a child in any circumstances. It is harder for our public authorities to carry out their duties when the law in this area is unclear.
The Bill proposes several key steps, including the publication of an annual report. I listened with amusement to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst it is always worth listening to his thoughts—on the subject of annual reports; to be honest, I recognised the picture he drew of them. However, some critical analysis of the views of the children of our country about the services that they enjoy—their well-being, hew services work and how effective they are—would be of value to us. Assembling the various items of information relating to children's services into one publication that we could all understand and read, and which we could monitor over a period of time, would be of assistance. I recognise that it could be said that we could collect all that information from a variety of other publications. but we would not then get the comparative picture or the total strategic vision that we require to consider how services for children operate.
I do not take the dismissive view of the UN convention—or, indeed, of all UN conventions—held by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I heard his remarks about foreigners I presume that there are no foreigners in Bromley and Chislehurst. If there are, we can assume only that the right hon. Gentleman does not feel the need to listen too hard to their opinions. Clearly, they do not have votes; except in local elections, obviously, if they are citizens of the EU or of Ireland. We note his thoughts on that.
I believe that if Her Majesty's Government sign up to a convention, they do not do so because they would look like the bad guys of the world if they did not. I believe that they are demonstrating some degree of commitment to those goals. We have an obligation to try to live up to the commitments that we have made—and, dare I say it, the commitments that we have encouraged others to make.
I take the view that other countries look carefully at the record of this country and of its Ministers and attempt to listen to what we have to say. If we make commitments, they look to us to keep them—just as we would expect others to keep to commitments that we had encouraged them to make. It is reasonable for us to take those responsibilities seriously.
The commissioner is to be given investigatory powers. Some valid points were made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about how those should be exercised, with what brief and with what limits. It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman, but I listened with interest and agreement to some of his thoughts about risk,
642
for example. I would also take a cautious view on allowing any public official a free rein to do precisely as they felt inclined—however worthy they might be and however thoughtfully they might have been appointed by the Secretary of State. There should be a limit, but there is a place for investigatory powers, however they are circumscribed.
The last issue is the joining-up of the arms of government. We have not heard my hon. Friend the Minister yet, and I am sure that he will give a thoughtful response. However, one of the defences offered in this matter is to say that all these activities are currently carried out by various arms of government; why do we need another agency to seek to force others to do what they are supposed to be doing themselves? There are already people who are supposed to be doing that work, including councillors or Members of Parliament, through their influence on Government. Why do we need a commissioner—an unelected individual—to do that task?
My answer is based on four years of experience here, but perhaps just as significantly, on my years of experience as an ordinary citizen, a councillor and a business man. Our civil service structure and the mechanism of government in our country is not focused on the needs of individual citizens of groups of citizens, in this case, children. Instead, it tends to be internally focused and driven by the agenda of a particular Department and its strategies. That produces lacunae—areas that we miss and do not explore, or weak areas where two or three public agencies consistently fail to produce a joint response.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a legitimate remark about the handling of the foot and mouth crisis, which could also apply to this area. It is difficult to get various public agencies to join together to defeat a common enemy. We should think carefully about strategies to deal with that inadequacy, and not merely dismiss the problem and say that nothing can be done and that we will have to live with the fact of departmental silos into which matters of public policy conveniently fit. We should not say that if citizens have to deal with an issue that crosses several Departments that is their hard luck, and that we must live with the gaps. That lack of interest in the delivery of modern government services serves us ill.
I have been asked where I think we are failing. I shall pick three examples where it strikes me that services to children are imperfect, and which require joined-up thinking and the actions of an individual to prompt that process. The first example is the children of travellers. I have two legal sites for travellers in my constituency, although other, less welcome individuals sometimes use them. The difficulty of ensuring that the children have access to appropriate health care, education and social services support is a challenge for any agency, especially as they may move on to another part of the country in pursuit of their legal activities. I believe that we currently carry out that task imperfectly.
The second example is the children of asylum seekers. It is unfashionable to be sympathetic towards that group. In rare cases, children are themselves asylum seekers. Do we respond adequately by providing them with timely advice and support, placing them in circumstances in which we would expect our own children to be placed if

643
they were in desperate need and required the comfort and company of other children and the services that other children would expect?
The third example is children who are forced to leave the parental home at the age of 15 or 16, and have to live off their wits. They have to find accommodation and deal with the benefits system, which discriminates against young people in delivering their housing needs, in order to bias their choice in favour of staying at home with their parents. I would want that always to be the choice of any child, especially my own child, but we must face the fact that in extreme circumstances children leave the family home out of fear and out of a need to find a comfortable and safe place to go. We are currently failing those young people, and have not yet worked out the appropriate benefits system and housing obligations to respond to their needs.
I thought of those three examples while I was listening with care to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I did not spend a great deal of time researching them, but they struck me when I considered what I would ask the commissioner to address at an early stage in his task.
I do not think that our public services act with a unity of purpose focused on a particular citizen or group. They tend to neglect those who are powerless, including children, who are unrepresented and have no vote. It is part of our culture that children's interests should be reflected through the interests of their parents, but we must recognise that that sometimes fails children.
We have an opportunity to take a step that would help children to have their voices heard. I have listened carefully to the points made about children not being entitled to vote or undertake various forms of activity. It is suggested that society therefore regards children as unable freely to exercise choice, and that is an understandable argument. Any opinion offered by a child must be taken in the context in which it is given; I listen carefully to the views of my eight-year-old, but I do not expect him to be able to advise me on complicated technical subjects.
I expect the commissioner to edge society's attitudes to children towards a willingness to listen, when appropriate, to what children have to say. He or she should link the arms of our Government more efficiently so that we can better deliver support. Our experience could lead us to emulate the other nations of the United Kingdom in taking that step. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response to the legitimate view that what appears to be right for the other nations appears to be wrong for England. The logic of that argument loses me entirely, although the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would doubtless tell me that the other nations have simply taken the wrong decision. Those actions have been taken elsewhere, by my party in Scotland and by the Government themselves in Wales. I should be interested to hear how that apparent inconsistency is addressed.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but the Government's position on the commissioner is peculiarly consistent with their view that it is justifiable to have a Parliament in Scotland, an Assembly in Wales and an Assembly in Northern Ireland when there is nothing to represent the views of the people of England. I rather resent that, as I support an English Parliament,
644
but not having a commissioner in England is absolutely consistent with the constitutional arrangements made elsewhere.
Mr. Todd: I take that point, although I vigorously defend the argument that the individual nations must make their own legislative arrangements. I should like to hear an intellectual exchange comparing best practice, so that we could decide whether the actions of one nation should be replicated elsewhere. If the Minister makes a persuasive argument that circumstances in England are clearly different from those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, I shall accept it. It may be so. I do not necessarily take the view that arrangements should be the same in all countries, but I want to test the arguments so that I may work out whether those arrangements should be replicated in England.
I am a realist, so I know that we will have no opportunity to pass the Bill into law during the current Parliament. We can, however, set an important pointer regarding the direction that public policy towards children should take. I hope that we shall take that step today, and that the Government will include a commitment of this kind when, in due course, they construct a manifesto for the people of this country.
12.14 pm
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby): It gives me great pleasure to speak in the support of the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). As many of us know, he has diligently fought the case for children since his election to Parliament, and I speak for many parents and children who are grateful for his continuing commitment. I shall focus on clauses 9, 10 and 12, even though clause 9 has already been discussed at length by Opposition Members and some reference has been made to clauses 10 and 12.
I bitterly regret that we have not yet been able to establish a commissioner for England. I warmly applaud our action to establish a commissioner for Wales, although I recognise that that was a manifesto commitment of our party in Wales. The establishment of a commissioner for England would be a suitable manifesto commitment with which to go to the country.
Clause 9(1)(a) empowers the commissioner to
"publish and disseminate Information about children".
Like many hon. Members—perhaps not so many—I am keen on statistics, especially those that are valid, relevant and objective. We receive many documents, brochures, pamphlets, notes and letters from all and sundry quoting a plethora of statistics, but I am always concerned to discover the source from which the statistics arise and the research activity than underpins them. Often, if the research structure is a valid one that can bear scrutiny, the statistics carry considerable weight.
Like many hon. Members, I recently received an excellent document from Mencap—its manifesto for the next election. It mentions equal rights and a series of other issues that affect people with learning disabilities. Mencap cites the fact that nine out of 10 people with learning difficulties have experienced bullying and harassment in the past year. I declare an interest as the mother of a daughter with severe learning difficulty, the sister of a person with learning difficulties, and the daughter of a mother who suffered quadriplegia.

645
I find information of the sort that Mencap quotes extremely interesting. However, there is no reference to, nor was Mencap able to draw my attention easily to, the source of that information, with the result that many would dismiss it because it appears to be anecdotal. I feel that there is significant merit in the assertion, but insufficient substance to enable me to argue on Mencap's behalf for better regulation.
It is, therefore, with great pleasure that I welcome clause 9(1)(a), together with clause 9(1)(b), which further empowers the commissioner to
"undertake or assist (financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons of any research".
It is vital that we have available at a single source a repository of information and research about children, their welfare and activities in the United Kingdom. For many of us pursuing community eases that have direct relevance to children, having to approach myriad organisations in the attempt to obtain justice for those individuals is highly problematic. Most of us know that, even after an initial experience that gives cause for optimism, a positive outcome or positive redress are extremely difficult to secure.
There is in my community a child for whom I have sought justice for many years. That person has now passed into adulthood, which presents a series of different problems because when a child turns 18, different legislation starts to apply, but let us ignore that for now. To obtain justice for that child, who has been abused, I have had to hold discussions with the health authority, several police authorities, several social services departments in more than one county, several councillors, several other Members of Parliament and the parliamentary ombudsman—the list is infinite.
I despair of the fact that, after so many years, we have made no significant progress. In such cases, people who cannot defend themselves and will never be able to do so have to rely exclusively on the interest of an individual who is neither related, nor paid to advocate on their behalf. Even with the incredible commitment shown over the years by the person I described we have been unable to ensure that justice was done. That is because although a plethora of bodies are involved with children, they are accountable to no central organisation.
I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre in his crusade for the establishment of a children's commissioner because of that case. A children's commissioner would help enormously. I do not think that the clauses would provide individuals with a great liberty that they would abuse or misuse—rather they would offer children who cannot speak for themselves an opportunity to obtain justice that is currently not available to them.
As an aside, I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend welcomes the appointment of a Minister with responsibility for children. I was delighted about that, and have invited the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), to visit my constituency in a couple of weeks.
A commissioner for children would be useful in youth disturbance cases. There cannot be a constituency that is not troubled by young people—if there is, I should certainly like to talk to the hon. Member who represents it. However, perhaps young people become troublesome only when we cease to be young ourselves. When I was
646
a child I certainly used to go out and about in the streets, laughing. However, many of my constituents are extremely concerned about young people who are merely going about their business—exercising the right to meet in their community—and want those young people taken away immediately. Some people even want such young people to serve periods of incarceration.
That may be a minor example, but young people represent a threat to many people in my community and we have tried to tackle the problem. Penalties are not necessary for such children—incarceration is certainly not necessary; we need constructive responses. A commissioner would be extremely helpful in that regard.
In our attempt to address the difficulties generated in my community by young people—some of whom are exercising the legitimate right to meet and to congregate, although others are intent on making mischief and, in many cases, cause substantial damage—we have involved a series of organisations: the local authorities; the local youth offender team; the youth team; the health service; the police; local councillors; Members of Parliament; the Department of Health; the Department for Education and Employment; social services departments; the Prison Service; and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. If I had more time, I could think of many others.
All those organisations have an explicit mandate to intervene and support the promotion of healthy practices and good communities and to encourage children to do well and realise their potential. However, there are serious communication difficulties between those organisations. It would have been of enormous help to my colleagues and me if we could have approached one individual to ask for help in the difficulties that we faced. I fear that, although we may arrive at a workable solution in my community that could be grafted on to other areas, there is no framework whereby we can disseminate that information and make it known. Clause 9(1)(a) and (b) are therefore very important to the establishment of a repository for information and the provision of research services.
I should like to refer to the important provision—clause 9(1)(c)—which states that the commissioner may
"give assistance to a child or to a person acting on behalf of a child, which may include giving advice (including legal advice) or arranging for legal advice or for legal representation".
That is crucial. We are foolish to presume that all parents and relatives, or even the friends and carers of individuals who have suffered from some form of abuse are capable of organising suitable legal advice for those individuals. In fact, I know of some parents with learning difficulties who have children with learning difficulties, and they are not able to do that.
As a parent of a daughter with a learning difficulty, I do not know whether I could organise appropriate advice and services for her, because the amount of information available on specific organisations and individuals who work exclusively in that specialty is, again, very fragmented. So the establishment of a commissioner, who can oversee and provide guidance on legal advice and representation for children, is extremely important.
I am in favour of clauses 10 and 11. With specific reference to clause 11, I believe that, for too long, many measures that primarily affect children have been passed without the impact on children being specifically defined.

647
My normal interests in the House lie in business, industry and technology, and I am delighted that legislation must be accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment. Such an assessment deals with the costs of compliance and the possible impact on business of the legislation, but it could be extended so that its impact on children could be considered.
Many hon. Members have worked in local authorities and they will be aware that the introduction of an environmental impact assessment was greeted with some joy, and trepidation, especially by those of us responsible for executing the assessments. Under that provision, all local authority policies must refer specifically to the likely impact on the environment. I regarded that as an onerous task when I worked in local authorities. Nevertheless, I understood why it was a useful exercise; it informed the individuals who drafted new local regulations and allowed them to be mindful of the wider picture when seeking to introduce measures to resolve what appeared to them to be a very small problem. The same is true for any legislation that can have an impact on children.
Furthermore, I believe that the commissioner would have an active role in relation to parents' rights and, importantly, children's rights. I was very saddened to hear that so many people still think that beating children is an effective means of promoting good behaviour. I suspect like many other hon. Members, my parents thought that physical punishment was very positive. In fact, physical punishment is not a positive way to treat children. I am still puzzled by the fact that we have so many laws to protect adults who are physically abused, but the same protection is not afforded to children. A commissioner would act as a focal point for organisations seeking to address the anomaly that provides people aged 18 and one day with significant protection and those aged 18 minus one day with very little.
I am particularly interested in clause 12, which deals with the code of consultation, because it relates to aspects of clause 9, which I have talked about at length, and the development of statistics and an information base. Consultation is imperative, and we have only recently begun to develop consultation in this country. I am involved in a constant round of consultation with my community. People welcome involvement. A meeting was held in my constituency recently to discuss the problems associated with young people, and more than 200 people attended. In the past, decisions about the management of young people in the community were made not by those who would be affected by them, but by the local authority and the police. I am delighted to be part of an Administration who have brought about a sea change in community relationships. I am disheartened to hear that some hon. Members would never consider consulting children.
I hold regular children's surgeries, and I often wish that the wisdom that children bring to those surgeries could be imparted to some of the adults who come to see me. Children seem to have a much kinder view of the world and some of their solutions seem to be eminently rational. That rationality seems to diminish with time.
I hope that hon. Members will indulge me while I share with them a discussion I had recently with an eight-year-old. She asked me whether we were going to do anything about smacking, and I said that I did not think
648
that there would be a law against smacking in the near future. She said that she was smacked by her mum, who was into keep fit and therefore smacked her quite hard. I asked her whether she approved of smacking, and she said, "No, because it does not make me or my friends behave any better, and I won't do it when I get older." I had to contrast that conversation with a letter about youth offenders from another constituent, who said that the problem could be resolved only by beating them all regularly and if one passed his front door, he would rush out immediately and beat him because of course he was very interested in the welfare of his car. I tried to impart to him the wisdom of that eight-year-old, but he was not particularly interested.
A commissioner would be very interested in children's views and would give them the respect and dignity that they deserve. I have learned a great deal from the children whom I represent. I am conscious of the fact that they will shape my world. I want to make sure that they are treated with respect, that their human rights are acknowledged and that they are championed by individuals.
Mr. McCabe: My hon. Friend is correct to say that we could learn a great deal by listening to children, but if we are concentrating on rights and the commissioner's role in upholding them, we might consider the horrendous example of the Bulger case. Would the commissioner's role have been to uphold the rights of Jamie Bulger or those of the youngsters who perpetrated the crime?
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for posing that question, especially as Jamie Bulger was murdered in the constituency adjacent to mine. The ramifications of the incident have had a great impact on our communities. Opinion is divided. I remain committed to the view that no child is born evil and that we have a moral duty to all children, irrespective of whether they are the perpetrators of victims of a crime, to ensure that the environmental or biological factors that might cause them to become people who threaten and abuse society are addressed and that they are treated as humanely as possible.
Many in my community still believe that the people who murdered Jamie Bulger should be incarcerated for life. That is a sad reflection on our society. The commissioner would have a difficult role in such crimes, but he could make a positive contribution. Too many opinions do not have a channel through which they can be driven to form a collective view.
I reassert my commitment and enthusiasm for this important Bill. I hope that the Government see fit to introduce such a measure shortly. I have not discussed all the clauses that are worthy of consideration, but they require work to make them more robust so that they can operate within the existing legal framework and complement the work of child protection organisations.
12.37 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis—Thomas), who is persuasive and measured, even though I might profoundly disagree with her. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on the way in which he proposed the Bill.

649
He always speaks passionately on the subject, to which he brings his long-standing professional experience. He has been assiduous in raising the issue in this Parliament, and I pay tribute to him for his work in that respect.
We support one theme that runs through the Bill, and we give credit to him for that. The Bill is part of a continuum, stretching back to 1989, when the Government of Baroness Thatcher signed up to the European convention on the rights of the child. Lady Thatcher was a good thing—as is the convention, which the Bill seeks to reflect. Article 5 of the convention states:
"States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention."
That is a powerful reinforcement of the proper rights and responsibilities of parents.
Dr. Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the convention has substance, or does he agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who said that the Government signed up to it only so that they would not be the bad guys and so that it could be safely disregarded?
Mr. Swayne: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) gave us a characteristically robust view of the way in which many conventions are signed up to. I do not have his experience to say whether that is generally true. However, a Conservative Government signed up to this convention and they took it seriously. We introduced the Children Act 1989 and we want the provisions of the convention to be adhered to.
It is precisely because we take article 5 so seriously that, in the debate on the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill on 16 January—a debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred—we tabled an amendment that would have denied the Bill a Second Reading. We thought that the Bill was inconsistent with the convention, so our amendment said that
"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill because it fails to assert the importance of the family in protecting and nurturing children; it fails to give families confidence that the Children's Commissioner will protect the interests of their children whilst not impinging on the rights and responsibilities of parents".
I do not want to go over the argument that we had on 16 January, but I have drawn attention to the amendment because it sprang from our understanding of what we regard as an important convention.
Article 4 is specifically relevant to this Bill. It states:
"States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention."
Our adherence to that article provides the context against which we judge the Bill. The establishment of a commissioner for children's rights is consistent with that article.
Mr. Dawson: Do the Opposition support the principle of a commissioner for children's rights for all children or for particular groups of children?
Mr. Swayne: I will come to that point and will make our position abundantly clear. The question is one of
650
emphasis, and I shall develop this point. We specifically regard the commissioner's direct function as looking after children, but he has an important role in co-ordinating public policy for all children's issues. However, I shall make that distinction rather clearer as I develop my argument.
I wish to place the Bill in its historical context. We signed up to the convention in 1989, and the Labour party joined that bandwagon—indeed, it may have been part of it from the convention's inception—and it supported that agenda. In its manifesto for the general election in 1992, it said:
"We will establish a children's minster within the Home Office to co-ordinate policies for children across departments. One independent children's commissioner will promote the interests of all children. Protecting children will be high on the agenda, as will the full implementation of the children act and the UN Convention to promote children rights."
That was up front as part of the Labour party's agenda in 1992.
When the Labour party came to power, the emphasis changed slightly. In November 1997, in answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), said that the Government had no plans to introduce a commissioner for children's rights, although he clearly said that they would consider the advantages as they produced their second report to the United Nations as part of their obligations under the convention that we signed in 1989.
In July 1997, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre introduced his first ten-minute Bill on the subject. In February last year, Sir Ronald Waterhouse reported, having been commissioned to look into problems that occurred with children in care in Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974. The original commission was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
On 17 March last year, the House debated the report. Although its recommendations were wide ranging, they were very clear in respect of what are now the provisions of the Bill. Sir Ronald recommended that there should be a Children's Commissioner for Wales with a wide-ranging remit, but that he should be a commissioner for all children. He should ensure that their rights were respected; that there was monitoring and oversight of complaints and, indeed, whistleblowing arrangements; and that there were arrangements for children's advocacy. The report also recommended that he should have power to examine the handling of individual cases, and to produce reports. Much of that agenda is now in the Bill.
May last year was a busy month in respect of the children's agenda. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre introduced his second ten-minute Bill on the subject, and the National Assembly for Wales adopted a report produced by its Health and Social Services Committee calling for the establishment of a commissioner for Wales—again, a commissioner for all children in Wales. Then there was the Second Reading of the Care Standards Bill, during which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said:
"The Government are committed to providing a children's rights director only for looked-after children. We believe that the provision should go further. Almost all children's charities and professionals support the idea of a children's commissioner. The model that I

651
suggest would allow protection and advocacy without interfering in the rights of parents."— [Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 496.]
It is clear from the Second Reading debate that we were attempting to address the agenda to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention—the wider remit that goes beyond just children in care. True to our word, at the 18th sitting of the Standing Committee we moved three new clauses and a new schedule to give effect to the commitments that we had given on Second Reading.
Mr. Dawson: I find what the hon. Gentleman is saying extremely helpful. He rightly says, as did I, that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child refers frequently to the importance of family relationships and the roles, rights and responsibilities of parents. What is there for the hon. Gentleman to worry about? Why does he feel that, in implementing the convention, the commissioner will infringe the rights of parents? That is what he has said, and that is what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said earlier.
Mr. Swayne: I want to be absolutely sure that the commissioner does not infringe those rights, and I want any Bill to contain provisions that ensure that he does not. It is for parents to speak for their children, to look after them and to protect their rights. Many children, however, have no such parents to do that on their behalf. It strikes me that there is a proper role for a commissioner to do that for them, which must be distinct from the role performed for children who do have families. However, there seems to be a role for a commissioner to co-ordinate all the Government's policy with respect to children, as distinct from specifically looking after administrative arrangements for looked-after children.
Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in what can be ostensibly well-ordered and thoroughly respectable families, the most horrific physical and sexual abuse can take place and that the distinction that he is trying to draw is impossible?
Mr. Swayne: No, because there are already procedures and proper roles for the public authorities to deal with those tragic, undesirable occurrences. As a consequence, a child may properly move from being in a family to being a looked-after child in the care of the local authority. It would be proper for them to have recourse at some stage to the services of a commissioner, but it is a point that I hope to develop or to clarify as I move on.
Our intention in moving the new clauses and the new schedule at the 18th sitting of the Committee that considered the Care Standards Bill was twofold. Sir Ronald Waterhouse recommended an independent commissioner. In the Bill, the Government's children's rights director for England was an employee, a member of the National Care Standards Commission. The Government's amendments with respect to creating the Children's Commissioner for Wales made him very much an independent commissioner, in line with the report's findings and the desires of the National Assembly. We sought to amend the Bill to create the same independence for the commissioner in England as for the Welsh commissioner.
652
I honestly do not believe that, had Sir Ronald's investigation related to events taking place in England, it is likely that he would have recommended anything other than an independent commissioner for children. It is disingenuous to suggest that the recommendations relate specifically to particular events that took place in Wales and that we should not extrapolate to England. Therefore, our agenda was to create precisely the same form of independence for the commissioner in England as for the commissioner in Wales.
Mr. McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the decision to establish a Children's Commissioner for Wales must be seen in the context of the inquiry into abuse in north Wales? Had a similar inquiry occurred in England, the recommendation may have been the same. The reality is that we have not had such an inquiry in England. Undoubtedly, the demands for a commissioner in Wales were heavily influenced by the fact that there was an inquiry into abuse in children's homes and the statutory sector there.
Mr. Swayne: In one way, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but in another I do. I agree that the events in Wales influenced the demand, but we had a Bill that dealt with the creation of a commissioner in Wales and a children's rights director in England. Given that we were examining in one piece of legislation those two positions, one could have extrapolated from the experience in Wales and said, "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." We have devolution and different administrative arrangements, but I would have thought that there would be no logic to different arrangements in this respect.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The hon. Gentleman said that the measures that his party moved during proceedings on the Care Standards Bill were designed to incorporate provision similar to that for Wales. However, he will be aware that a Bill to establish the Welsh commissioner had not been published at that time.
Mr. Swayne: New schedule 1, which the Government tabled for the 18th sitting, set out the arrangements for the Welsh commissioner. The Bill that we discussed in the House only last month develops that role, but the establishment of the Welsh commissioner was based on the measure introduced by the Government. Our new schedule 2 was identical in every respect to the Government's new schedule 1, save only that it would have created a commissioner for England rather than one for Wales.
All along, the Government's position was that the children's rights director would have sufficient independence as a consequence of the way in which the National Care Standards Commission was constituted. That argument had some force, although we disagreed with it. We would have preferred to have provided the same independence as appeared to have been afforded to the Welsh commissioner. That battle was fought in the Committee and, unfortunately, we lost.
Our next concern was that we wanted to go further than the Government in terms of the remit of the children's rights director. Here, I share part of the agenda of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. Sir Ronald wanted a commissioner for all children, but the Government

653
delivered a children's rights director for looked-after children. Let me make our position absolutely clear. Sir William Utting's report, "Taking Children Seriously", observed in its foreword:
"We lack an independent office mandated to protect the interests of children in general on all matters of public policy and administration that affect their lives."
We take that seriously. We believe that there is a role for a children's commissioner with a function relating to children being looked after by the statutory services, but that he should also have a wider function relating to the work affecting children that the Government carry out across all Departments.
We take a two-pronged approach, and the primary role is undoubtedly with respect to looked-after children. Out of the failure of the state as a parent sprang the reports of Sir William and Sir Ronald. Last Friday, we debated the Adoption Bill. The previous Monday, we discussed the Government's Adoption and Children Bill. All the Members who spoke showed how comprehensively the state has failed, over many years, to protect looked-after children in its care.
Again and again, we heard that, at any one time, between 50,000 and 100,000 children are being looked after by the state. That figure represents less than 1 per cent. of the age group, but those children are hugely and disproportionately over-represented in every single measure of deprivation, be they among the homeless; those in prison; those with poor health, particularly poor mental health; or those with a poor education and no qualifications. Fully three quarters of children emerging from care have no educational qualification at all and they lack many of the most basic life skills. One in seven young women leaving care is either already a mother or pregnant. That is a shocking statistic. What sort of chance does the child of a young woman leaving care have, apart from perpetuating the cycle of deprivation?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) told the House of the case of a young woman who had had 60 local authority placements in care. Although I think that such cases are clearly the exception, there are very many children who, by their 10th birthday, have had 10 local authority placements in care since their fifth birthday.
We regard creating a primary role for a children's commissioner as part of an attempt to ginger up the services available to looked-after children. Just last Friday, when dealing with clause 2 of her Adoption Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) proposed a way of involving a children's rights director in an appeals process against local authorities' decisions and delays. I thought that she made that case particularly well. We may be able to give her Bill further consideration, perhaps when the Government's Adoption and Children Bill is in Committee. We see the case for establishing the role of a children's rights director, but we would go further.
We take seriously the fact that we signed up to the 1989 convention—it was, after all, Baroness Thatcher's Government who signed up to it—and we see the case for giving the commissioner a cross-departmental role to walk the corridors of power and ensure that children's interests are taken properly into account. The Children Act 1989 was a great step forward in that it changed the focus of legislation better to reflect the child's point of view. However, we believe that further progress can be made.
654
I accept hon. Members' point that children do not participate directly in the democratic process but are affected profoundly by regulations and legislation. It follows that there could quite properly be an independent person who has a remit to examine legislative proposals across Departments and represent the interests of children who will be affected by those proposals. In that way, children's interests will be taken properly into account in the working of Government and the legislative process. I therefore hope that I have demonstrated to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that we support the theme that runs through his Bill.
I would have favoured the House with a full analysis of the Bill, but I have been spared from doing so by the forensic analysis provided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Although my analysis of the Bill is slightly more charitable than his, his arguments had great force and I found myself agreeing with most of what he said. I did, however, disagree on one or two specific points.
Clause 1(5) states:
"The Commissioner and the Commissioner's staff shall not be regarded as agents or servants of the Crown."
My reaction when reading that was, "Good—he will be the independent commissioner for which the Waterhouse report called." That is a desirable provision, and I was pleased with it.
Clause 2(1) states:
"The Commissioner shall be under a duty— (a) to protect the rights and interests of children".
That is another good provision.
Clause 2(1)(c) deals with the commissioner's duty
"to promote compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as ratified by Her Majesty's Government".
That is an even better provision. The Bill is going very well.
Clause 2(1)(b) deals with the commissioner's duty
"to seek to ensure that the rights and interests of children are properly taken into account by Ministers of the Crown".
When I saw that provision I thought, "Excellent!" My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst complained that people go off on junkets and, after an agreeable time and agreeable discussions, sign up to conventions that they have no intention of implementing when they return. Perhaps the requirement to abide by the conventions will provide a powerful incentive to think about what they are signing up to, in the way that my right hon. Friend says they never do.
I begin to have serious reservations about the clause, however, when subsection (1)(b) says that the commissioner shall
"seek to ensure that the rights and interests of children are properly taken into account by Ministers of the Crown, government departments, local authorities and other public bodies and voluntary and private organisations when decisions on policies affecting children are taken."
After all, private and voluntary organisations did not sign up to the convention, so they should not be accountable in that way.
The subsection goes on, in paragraph (d), to say that the commissioner shall
"seek to ensure that children have effective means of redress if their rights are disregarded by any body referred to in paragraph (b)."

655
As I have said, I do not believe that all the bodies referred to in paragraph (b) should be subject to the commissioner's investigations.
Mr. Dawson: I am completely confused. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the convention, the signing of which, in contrast to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, he has lauded, is not binding on anyone other than the agencies of Government?
Mr. Swayne: Precisely. The commissioner's role is in respect of statutory bodies. A wide-ranging commissioner should not have the power to interfere with individuals. We have the law to constrain the behaviour of individuals and we must not create some arbitrary power that gives rise to all sorts of expense and investigation and is accountable to no one—certainly not to us. That is where I see a huge danger in the Bill.
Mr. McCabe: This is not a view that I would take, but if the object of the commissioner is to guarantee children's rights, would it not be absurd to extend redress only to rights in respect of particular organisations while ignoring the abuse of rights that might occur within the family or in private organisations? Is that not the most partial availability of rights of which we could ever conceive?
Mr. Swayne: No. It strikes me as a fundamental guarantee against arbitrary Government. It is the law that governs families and private individuals and organisations. We cannot have a free-roving administrative official calling them to account outside the provisions of the ordinary law.
Mr. McCabe: Let me have another go. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if I have a fundamental right that is guaranteed by a commissioner, that right must be the same whether it is a public body or a private individual who seeks to deny it?
Mr. Swayne: In some circumstances, if the law is framed in that way, that is true. If one has a right not to be discriminated against in employment on grounds of religion or colour, of course that right is enforceable in the courts in respect of anyone who would seek to deny it, but the Bill gives very wide powers—in addition to the judicial powers—to a roving official to call individuals to account outwith the provisions of the courts. That is where I see a grave danger. It is entirely appropriate for public bodies to be accountable in that way—although I am not sure that even the Government would go quite as far as the Bill does in respect of public authorities, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that—but I would certainly not want private individuals to be swept in.
Mr. Barron: Much of what is now deemed to be public life and representation is carried out in partnership between local authorities and many charitable and voluntary organisations within communities. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that those organisations should not be brought to task in terms of their service delivery, but that those with statutory responsibilities should?
Mr. Swayne: That is precisely the point I am making. It is quite appropriate that private organisations that work
656
in association or partnership with local authorities should be accountable, but not to a commissioner with the wide-ranging powers specified in the Bill. That does not mean that they should not be accountable, or that they should not be subject to the ordinary provisions that already exist to ensure their accountability.
We are talking about a wide-ranging new power to hold all sorts of people to account. I would view with more equanimity the thought that the commissioner might hold Ministers of the Crown to account, and I would be interested to see what the Minister has to say on that. But I am sceptical about the provisions in so far as they affect private individuals. Clause 4(3) says:
"If it appears to the Commissioner that a person is not complying with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as ratified by Her Majesty's Government he may make recommendations in the form of a compliance notice".
The "person" might be a father or a mother—a private individual. It is quite outrageous that a new official that we might create under the Bill could act in this way. Those families have rights, and have not signed up to the UN convention. There are, after all, all sorts of things that could come out of the convention, which contains 54 articles. I have quoted from two. The last thing I want is the creation of a new commissioner with the ability to hold to account any person whom he deems fit with respect to their adherence to the 54 different articles.
I have huge reservations about the powers that we are proposing in the Bill, and much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said was entirely accurate. Alter my right hon. Friend spoke, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd)—who is most reasonable in these respects—said that he had to agree with much of my right hon. Friend's analysis.
Clause 5(5) states that there is a power to
"Recover from that person any reasonable expenses incurred."
It strikes me that there is every potential here for creating a new self-financing public authority. The commissioner will be able to issue notices of non-compliance, demand reports and information and then charge private individuals, organisations, Government departments or local authorities for that service. That is unacceptable and any sensible Parliament would not pass such a measure.
Clause 6(3) states
"No person shall be compelled under subsection (2) to give information or produce documents which he could not be compelled to give or produce in civil proceedings before the High Court."
In other words, we are effectively setting up a power so that an administrative official will enjoy, in effect, the legal status of a High Court judge. That is not acceptable.
I wonder what the Minister has to say about clause 7, which states:
"Whenever it appears necessary or expedient to the Commissioner, he may require a Minister of the Crown to provide a child impact statement relating to any decision or proposal on policy which the Minister has made and which affects or may affect children."
Ministers are properly accountable to Parliament and not to a commissioner with a roving brief.
Clause 7(3) states that
"the Minister shall comply with that request."
If the Minister shall comply with it, it is not a request: it is an order. Given the way in which the Bill is written, it seems to establish a children's rights inquisition. The fact

657
that it seems that way to me may be because my reading of it is inadequate or inexperienced, but no self-respecting Parliament would give such enormous, unaccountable and potentially arbitrary powers to an official. I cannot ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill unless the Standing Committee emasculates it.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has put an enormous amount of work into this issue. In this Parliament, he has introduced two ten-minute Bills as well as this Bill. Why did he not introduce a Bill that we could all have supported?
Mr. Dawson: Not the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
Mr. Swayne: Well, that the majority of us could have supported. I have tried to show—The record of our performance in Standing Committees bears me out—that there is something in the Bill and in the hon. Gentleman's agenda that we could have supported. I do not know whether it is right to describe the Bill as left-wing claptrap, but I agree with my right hon. Friend when he characterised it as the children's rights commissar Bill. That is certainly my reading of it.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre may argue that he was not trying to gain the Opposition's support—that he has his own agenda, so it does not matter to him whether he has our support. However, the Opposition's support is more important than it might otherwise be, because we are coming to the wash-up end of the Parliament when negotiations take place on what Bills will get through in the remaining days. If there had been a Bill that we could all have supported, it could have been a testimony to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that it is not the Bill before us today.
Given the way in which the Bill has been written, I cannot ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it. I fear that it may be a lost opportunity.
1.18 pm
Mr. Steve McCabe: I do not think any hon. Member doubts the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) in introducing the Bill. I agree with the sentiments and intentions of the variety of organisations that have supported the Bill. Having said that, I fear that I may be a lone, sceptical or dissenting voice on the Labour Benches. I shall explain my position.
I, too, have some experience of working with children, educating those who work with children and regulating the training of social workers—that may explain why they get such a bad press. I take the matter seriously, but I have some doubts about how the Bill has been constructed, and I wonder whether its intention would be reflected if it were enacted.
The more I listened to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the more I thought that, if his speech could have been stripped of the unique hyperbole and rich libertarian rhetoric that is increasingly the trademark of his contributions, he would have made some valuable criticisms of the Bill. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's view was a lot more consistent and clear than that offered by the official Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I do not know about left-wing claptrap, but he gave us right-wing muddle.
658
My first doubt about the Bill arises from the fact that I am no great fan of tsars, regulators and overlords. In approaching a problem, there may be a danger in thinking always that the solution is to create a new overlord. I am not sure that the evidence to date proves that to be true. Indeed, some evidence suggests that, whatever our intentions, previous travels down that route may, rather than tackling the problem, have created greater bureaucracy and regulation for its own sake.
We must strike a difficult balance when we extend the rights of some and curb the rights of others, as has been acknowledged in some of the remarks that we have heard today on the rights of parents. Whether or not we agree with all the arguments made about parents, it is clear that hon. Members are worried about the balance of rights.
The key issue, particularly for those who work with or represent children, is that we need to be clearer about communications structures and lines of command. Often, inquiries into events that have gone wrong identify communications or the line of command as a source of problems. We need to pay more attention to existing procedures, and to ensuring that they are followed. Supervision of those who work with children and inspection of the processes involved are crucial. I should like greater encouragement of whistleblowing where things are going wrong.
Many years ago, shortly after I left school, I worked briefly as a nursing auxiliary in a hospital. It would then have been described as a hospital for people with a mental handicap, or for mentally defective people—we use much better terminology these days. I cannot say that I witnessed abuse, but I saw a number of activities that struck me as not being entirely fair. I had no idea, however, how to raise those matters so that something could be done. I suspect that much of the historic abuse that is now coming to light can be partly explained by the fact that people did not then know how to complain. The environment did not encourage whistleblowing, and I should like to see more of that.
We must pay more attention to what children say, particularly about child abuse. We must take their comments seriously. If we approached abuse in that way, our existing structures might allow us to do more to emphasise the rights of children and ensure that they are respected. For that reason, I am anxious about setting up more committees, proformas and reports, which might simply create far more paperwork without necessarily attacking the problem. In addition, encouraging a defensive mentality among the professionals who work with children might prove a downside of the Bill.
The phenomenon known as defensive medicine is well recognised in the United States and to an increasing extent in this country. So concerned are professionals about the risk of litigation that they allow self-protection rather than the case in hand to govern their activities. There is some evidence of that attitude creeping into both social work and teaching. Setting up an all-powerful overlord to peer over people's shoulders, able at any time to wield immense powers of intervention, might encourage that defensive mentality.
Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend accept that that defensiveness often works against the interests of children? It is promoted by powerful external interests—

659
often the media or the relevant local authority procedures—and children's interests and rights go by the board.
Mr. McCabe: I accept that the sort of defensive mentality that I describe is a direct result of people's anxiety about their own position in the face of external pressures. My point is that the danger inherent in creating an all-powerful commissioner is that, rather than encouraging people to focus on children's real rights and the issues that genuinely affect them, it might encourage individual professionals to focus on self-preservation. My hon. Friend says that other agencies exert such pressure on hard-pressed individuals, but my major concern is about the possibility that the commissioner would have the same effect.
I am concerned about other aspects of the Bill, although I shall not go into the details, which have already been explored. It strikes me that the Bill is extremely wide-reaching. A Bill that focuses more narrowly on protecting existing rights, rather than one that gives the commissioner a roving brief, would be more desirable. There is a danger inherent in the Bill being so open ended: for example, we have no idea how many staff would be appointed, and so no idea of the costs.
Some of the aims set out in the Bill could be achieved without it. In the Bill, Ministers are asked to recognise and pay attention to the rights of children, but I assume that, to some extent, the children and young people's unit has been set up specifically to address such issues. Furthermore, an impact study can always be arranged—we do not need a children's commissioner to enable a Minister to decide to commission an impact study when new legislation is being considered.
I can see how clause 8(3) would make it easier for an individual to make a complaint. It states:
"Information provided to the Commissioner under subsection (1) or (2) shall not identify any person who has made a representation or complaint."
However, when reading that provision—I might have misinterpreted it and if I have I shall be grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre—the recent, extremely sad case of David Jones came to my mind. He was the manager of Southampton football club; now, happily, he is back in the west midlands with Wolverhampton Wanderers. He lost his job, was subjected to enormous personal stress and put through a terrible experience, but it was finally found that he had not a single stain on his character. I do not want any more cases like that.
I want all children who are in danger or threatened with it to have proper avenues and institutions to enable them to express what is happening to them and ensure that those who abuse them are brought to book, but I do not want any more long, drawn-out cases in which an individual's reputation and career are savaged while that individual has no redress. Given the current wording of the provision, it would be possible for spurious allegations and information to be laid before the commissioner, which would trigger investigations that might have a serious bearing on an individual's reputation and, indeed, his life. At no stage would the individual know either the substance of those allegations or who had made them. The
660
Bill is concerned about rights, but such provisions could be seen as a serious attack on the rights of individuals—I have some desperate concerns about that.
I have read of the German experience. In Germany, there is a position akin to that of a children's commissioner, but it is in a commission that deals more broadly with the rights of the family, the elderly and various groups. Should we appoint a commissioner only for children's rights? Does that not mean that, in years to come, we shall be making the same arguments in support of commissioners for the elderly, single parents, divorced men or menopausal women? There is no end to the groups who could claim that their rights are infringed. Perhaps we should concentrate more on the rights of the whole population rather than singling out children.
Another danger of the single approach is that we might not learn from previous experience. In this country, we have a welter of experience drawn from inquiries—sadly, mostly into cases of child abuse. We could trace a line from Maria Colwell, to Jasmine Beckford and to Anna Climbie to show what has gone wrong with our system. There are many examples of what is wrong with the system—where it falls down and children are not protected.
The examples of the lack of protection for children are writ large. I am nor sure that we need more people to tell us what is wrong. We need to ensure that the existing procedures are properly and rigorously pursued and effectively supervised. That might produce much greater dividends than setting up a whole new apparatus.
Similarly, we can draw on the inquiry into residential homes in north Wales or the Kincora investigation. We know about the nature of the abuse that occurred for a long time in residential institutions. We know about the practices that have caused children such distress. We do not need a commissioner to initiate a new body of research to teach us about that; the evidence already exists—it is writ large. We actually need to show that we are constantly learning from those experiences and that we are doing our best to minimise the chance of them recurring.
In that respect, we could take some practical steps. We could re-examine the training of certain key professionals who work with children. We could consider why there is not more joint training. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will acknowledge, one of the commonest difficulties experienced in child abuse or child protection inquiries is dealing with the different cultures, procedures and training backgrounds of the professionals who have to work together on such cases. Often that inhibits the work and progress of the inquiry. We could practically address the existing system and try to make professions and institutions work more closely together—to bind them in a helpful way.
Instead of being obsessed with the idea that children's rights in our society are a form of regulation or an intrusion on civil life by the state, perhaps we should address the whole environment and our attitudes to children. Other societies are much more child centred and child friendly. That may account for the fact that they experience fewer cases of child abuse—or at least reported cases.
I shall give a simple example. When my daughter was six-weeks-old, I went on holiday to Ireland, where, of course, all the pubs, restaurants and similar establishments

661
made it clear that it was perfectly acceptable for the customers to have their children with them. Shortly after that holiday, I strolled into a local pub in Birmingham on a nice summer's day and was confronted by a barmaid who said, "You can't come in here with a child." A society in which the attitude is that children must be kept apart, hidden away and separated from main events questions the existence of children's rights.
Similarly, if people went out for a stroll on a summer's evening in Italy, they would not be at all surprised to see whole families strolling along hand in hand, with the children very much part of what was happening, but such occurrences are increasingly rare in our society. Our society deliberately segments and separates children from a great deal of normal activity. In my judgment, the fact that we hide children away at times makes abuse possible in the first place. More could be done about that in a more open and child-friendly society.
In passing, it is probably worth saying that we could do some basic things in the House. It fair to say that it is strange that we put greater weight on the need for space for a gun club than we do for a creche, or that we have a family room that resembles a doctor's surgery, rather than being child friendly. If we are really concerned about children's rights, perhaps we need to make some basic changes to the culture and the environment in which children are forced to grow up. We need to encourage a change of attitude, so that it is much harder for individuals to abuse children's rights. I wonder whether that would be a more effective way to address some of the concerns rather than that proposed in the Bill.
The children's rights director will have powers to deal with those children in care and those who are at risk, and it is right that an overseeing body should exist. However, if we are to provide a further body, we are effectively saying that we do not have much confidence in the existing procedures, that there is no aspect of private life that cannot be subject to regulation and that the only way to guarantee and protect children's rights is to have a overlord, a policing figure, who will regulate every aspect of our dealings with children. That is not the right starting point.
I was struck by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre spoke about the meetings that the United Nations sponsors held in schools—the "Put it to your MP" campaign. I took part in one of those meetings, and was struck by the ideas that young people can contribute and the number of issues about which they have very strong and definite opinions. Contrary to the views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, listening to young people can be informative and helpful to those of us who tend to see the world through a narrower age perspective. It can be useful to consider the views of young people.
As I said, I was struck by the positive comments that young people can make and the strong and clear views that they have on many subjects, but those views will be nourished and encouraged only if we create the right atmosphere—the permissive atmosphere—to make that possible in this country. I am not convinced that the way to guarantee greater respect for children's rights is to create a new policing apparatus. That is the fundamental danger. The Bill's intentions are good—the desire to respect children's rights; to give children a much greater voice; and not to see them simply as passive objects—and should be welcomed.
662
The question is whether we should achieve that by creating a massive, over-arching regulatory framework with the power to intrude at will in all aspects of life in what would sometimes be a contradictory fashion. I seriously doubt that that is the best way forward. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend's Bill should not proceed to a Committee for consideration, but we would make more progress if we could pare it down and focus on areas where there is clear evidence of abuse, rather than creating unnecessarily wide powers in the expectation of discovering other problems in future.
I am always worried when I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but in this case he is right. The Bill is ambitious—it anticipates problems—and unnecessarily intrusive. I should prefer a shorter. sharper Bill that tackles specific problems. We should emphasise the need to create a permissive environment for children so that we do not need to be obsessed with policing society.
1.41 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I do not want to dwell on the detail of the Bill because this is a Second Reading debate and we should consider the principles behind it. In any event, right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out that several of their concerns can be dealt with in Committee, where it will be possible to pare the Bill and make it more sharply focused, so we should do that instead of preventing the Bill from proceeding.
I listened carefully to the debate. Two Members, in particular, have root and branch objections not only to the Bill, but to the very idea of a commissioner. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), having occupied a position of great statesmanship in the previous Government, has adroitly repositioned himself as a small mosquito seeking to draw a little blood from the exposed parts of the body politic. Interestingly, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has moved in the other direction—from mosquito to statesman in one bound.
The position now occupied by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst means that he has given himself licence to use intemperate language and imagery that other Members would find difficult to get away with. However, his view that all foreigners are not to be trusted opens up a new discussion. He will not appreciate the fact that a children's commissioner or someone of similar status is pretty common in foreign countries, both in Europe and elsewhere. I think of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. The role does not have exactly the same functions in every country, and each has a different way of doing things, but the principle enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)—whom I congratulate on introducing the Bill—has been established in those countries.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst must ask himself whether all those people are wrong. Has their society collapsed? Are children running rampant in the streets, disobeying their parents and lacking respect for their elders? Is it that foreigners do not have children or, if they do, they have them in such a monstrously different way that we do not recognise their concerns as

663
being the same as ours? I suggest, politely, that that is not the case. It is worth considering arrangements in other countries, which, in general, work well.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for listening to what I said, and he is doing me the courtesy of responding to it. However, for the sake of clarity, my experience of international and multinational bodies in which foreigners are represented has taught me that what they do need not be imported into this country. We should make law for ourselves and our circumstances through our elected representatives. We do not need to import foreign material.
Dr. Whitehead: When we make laws we should, of course, have regard to what is right for the circumstances in our country. I am not saying that we should not do that. However, we should not shut our eyes to what is happening elsewhere. From my observation of the way in which many other countries do their duty by their children, it is clear that they have similar worries. It is at least worth having a look at countries where children's commissioners or similar arrangements are in place to see whether they have the dire effects that have been suggested.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that the commissioner would be a commissar. I have been reading Robert Service's excellent biography of Lenin. He knew how to appoint commissars, and the commissioner would not be one. The person who had a considerable hand in influencing some of the ideas behind the Bill set out the commissioner's role as:
"Influencing policy-makers and practitioners to take greater account of the human rights of children … Promoting compliance with the minimum standards set out by the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child … Promoting respect for the views of children throughout society … Promoting knowledge of the human rights of children among all children and adults … Seeking to ensure that children have effective means of redress when their rights are violated or disregarded".
That does not describe a commissar who can go into every corner of society and demand access to what people are doing in the privacy of their own homes. It is a measured approach to draw together strands of public policy that seem to be fractured and separate and which sometimes fail our children when they have few advocates and few civil rights. We could do with establishing a body to consider how society works out its relationship with children, from a public and private perspective.
The other main concern about the principle behind the Bill is how it would affect private responsibilities, which was raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). The argument is that it would undermine parents' rights, but we cannot live in a black-and-white world in which each parent has complete rights over children or children have complete rights over parents. The real world is not like that. Parents do, and should, have a considerable say in how their children are brought up and what happens to them as they become adults. Children are not the property of parents who can do what they wish. Part of the essence of a civilised society is that we place boundaries on what people can do to their children and to those with whom they interact on a private basis.
664
It is part of the contract of being a member of society that one recognises the obligation to behave reasonably, decently and honourably towards people who are often helplessly in one's care. As a contracted member of society, one cannot divorce oneself from the norms and reasonable expectations of that society and say that, once the front door is shut, "I can do whatever I like, and no one has a right to tell me what to do." That would be an ill-advised definition of what it is to be a parent.
In circumstances in which parents' rights are circumscribed by their responsibilities towards society, it is right to consider how public policy develops. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) pointed out that one simply cannot apply the parenting model in some circumstances, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) provided several examples. In cases of child prostitution, child labour, runaway children, children committing crime and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire mentioned, in cases where we try to ensure that the children of travelling families receive education, to what extent do we say that we should simply refer the matter back to the parents and that everything will be okay? In many cases, that is the last thing that one should do to protect the welfare of a child.
Notwithstanding the detail of the Bill, a matter of principle suggests that we should adopt the approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and give the Bill its Second Reading. Even if it does not make it all the way to the statute book—I suspect that it might not—it gives us an opportunity to move forward our appreciation of the issues. We have moved beyond the idea that children should be placed in the background and be seen but not heard. I sympathise with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), who said that we are a society that still wishes to proceed with its daily business while keeping children at a distance for our own safety and convenience.
The issue is one of changing attitudes and changing the way we do things. If the debate has helped in that, and if the Government think carefully about how we proceed on the issue of children's welfare, this Bill will have performed a great service.
1.53 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): This has been a wide-ranging debate, in which right hon. and hon. Members have made their arguments very persuasively and with great skill. We have heard speeches for and against the Bill—and then there was the speech of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I could not quite make out whether he was in favour of the Bill. However, I shall come to his remarks shortly.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on bringing the issue of a children's rights commissioner to the attention of the House once again. I commend him for his committed and valuable work on children's issues and the tenacity with which he presented his arguments. The Bill is identical to those introduced by my hon. Friend and others on at least two previous occasions, and I should perhaps reassure him and all those in favour of the Bill that the Government are continuing to consider carefully the arguments that he and others are making. I agree that it is an important issue that we should keep under review.

665
On what my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said, we have considered carefully, and continue to study, the different models of commission that exist around the world. We are taking a particular interest in the proposals emerging from Wales, and the consultation exercise planned for Northern Ireland later in the year. We are always willing to consider whether we need to make further improvements in the existing arrangements for safeguarding the well-being and protection of children in England.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will know, we are currently implementing what I consider to be a substantial programme of new measures to improve safeguards for children. We are making those practical improvements the initial focus of our work. As I have said, we will continue to think about how the measures can be improved in future, but I think it right for our first priority always to be the safety of those at the greatest risk of harm. It is in that regard that the most immediate need for additional protection has been most apparent.
I shall go into more detail shortly, but first I want to comment on some of the speeches that have been made. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is not present, because she spoke with a great deal of conviction, as she always does. Throughout her time in the House she has taken children's issues very seriously, and has also worked to secure positive changes in both legislation and practice. She has a great record on this subject, and many of us will miss her counsels in the future.
It was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)—who, unfortunately, is not present either—that he had intended to speak for a long time, and he succeeded in doing so. He read out a long list of quotations—one was from one of my speeches, and I am grateful to him for that—but, most important, he expressed his opposition to the Bill on philosophical grounds. He also expressed clear opposition to the very concept of children's rights.
The hon. Gentleman's speech probably generated more heat than light. His comments had a distinctive 19th century flavour. I see that he has now arrived. I am sorry that he missed what I said about his speech, but he will probably be flattered by my observation that it had a distinctive 19th century flavour.
Mr. Leigh indicated assent.
Mr. Hutton: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be flattered. Fortunately for children, however, this is the 21st century, and I am glad to say that we have made a good deal of progress since the time to which the hon. Gentleman presumably harks back.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bother Valley (Mr. Barron) made sensible comments about the way in which policy needs to evolve over a period. As I have tried to make clear, we need to keep the issue under review. Like many others, he also asked about some of the practical details of the Bill. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that now is not the time to go into those details—this is Second Reading, not Committee—but I think that we need to consider carefully, especially in relation to clause 10,
666
before giving anyone apart from the proper authorities the right to instigate criminal proceedings. I must therefore tell my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that I have reservations about aspects of his Bill, especially that clause.
Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is also absent. I shall not say that he lowered the tone of our proceedings, for I do not think that he did. We heard the familiar rant about foreigners, which many of us find deeply distasteful, regrettable and rather immature for a Member of Parliament—but I think that the right hon. Gentleman should find an agent, because he would go down a storm if he did a turn at Cemetery Cottages working men's club in my constituency, where such comic turns are always appreciated. However, I found his general attitude to the Bill and to children's issues as a whole rather regrettable. One aspect in particular stuck in my mind—oh, good: the right hon. Gentleman has arrived as well.
Mr. Leigh: He is being rude about you, Eric.
Mr. Hutton: I am never rude about the right hon. Gentleman, although he and I probably agree on absolutely nothing. I am sure he is glad to hear that. I took strong objection to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the importance of listening to children. He is wrong. His remarks were made in the context of a wider objection to the Bill. I am sure that he does not personally take that view on listening to children, or trying to understand what they want to say to us.
One thing has always stuck in my mind as a Member of Parliament. Soon after I was elected in 1992, I went to a primary school in my constituency and met a group of 10 and 11-year-olds. I asked them a question that, in subsequent years, I have always asked: if we could make a new law in this place, what should it be? One little lad stuck up his hand and said, "Can I answer that question?" I said, "Of course. Tell me what you think we should do." He said, "We should pass a law that my dad can get a proper job. He lost his job in a shipyard 10 years ago and he has not worked since." When we listen to such children, they come up with a good deal of common sense. Perhaps we cannot pass a law to ensure that his dad works, but as a matter of public policy what the child said was important. Full employment is an important social and economic policy. The view that that young person expressed is, I think, the view of the vast majority of mainstream opinion. It would be a mistake if we ever thought that we could disregard their views.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire spoke well about the need to support the role of parents in bringing up children. That should be the main focus in all the work. We have certainly tried to make that the main priority for our programme of work. I agree that we need great clarity on how to improve the well-being of children in our society. I am sure that he would be the first to welcome some of the measures that we have put in place since 1997.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis—Thomas), who, I understand, cannot be with us, referred to the needs of children with learning difficulties. I am sure that she and others will be aware of the Government's White Paper "Valuing People", which we published only last week, and of our commitment to improve public services for children with learning disabilities and to improve research in that area.

667
I shall outline some of the structural changes that we are making to the way in which the Government seek to meet the needs of children and young people. There have been five strands to our work. First, from next April, under the Care Standards Act 2000—many hon. Members have referred to this—there will be a new children's rights director for England. Working within the new National Care Standards Commission, the director will, I hope, be able to act as a powerful champion for some of the most vulnerable children in our society.
Although the precise role and functions of the director are not set out in that Act—I am sure that the hon. Member for New Forest, West will remember this—provision is made in schedule 1 to the Act for the post's functions to be prescribed by regulation. The Government plan to publish draft regulations covering the work, key tasks and responsibilities of the director and put them out for public consultation in the near future.
I am pleased to say that the children's rights director will be in his or her post by the end of this year. Although we are still shaping the role, it is likely that the key responsibilities of the postholder will include setting and monitoring the registration and inspection arrangements for regulated services for children; monitoring and reviewing the operation of the national minimum standards for children's services and recommending possible changes; ensuring that the National Care Standards Commission gives full and effective coverage of children's rights in its statutory responsibilities for regulated children's services; ensuring that the views of children for whom regulated services are provided are given proper weight by the commission; and reviewing and monitoring the effectiveness of complaints and whistleblowing procedures operated by regulated providers. Those are some of the director's key functions, which address many of the issues and concerns that my hon. Friends have raised.
It might sound like a long list of tasks, but it signals real change for children who need the additional protection that a powerful children's rights director can offer. Our challenge is to rebuild the confidence and faith of vulnerable children in a system that has failed them for far too long.
In appointing an individual to that key post, we will look for someone with a proven track record in promoting child care practice and children's rights; experience in managing children's services at a senior level; and a strong professional background in child care social work. In short, we are looking for a powerful champion of children's rights—someone who can represent the interests of the most vulnerable children in our society; ensure that the commission uses its regulatory powers to protect vulnerable children; ensure that the commission's inspection programme serves to protect children; and ensure that children living away from home in a variety of settings are properly protected.
Secondly, hon. Members will be aware that in August last year we set out new arrangements for how the Government will improve the way in which they deal with issues concerning children and young people. Changes that we have made include establishing a new Minister for young people—that role will be fulfilled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—
668
and a new Cabinet Committee on children and young people, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Of course, an extra £450 million of further funding through a new children's fund will focus on preventive programmes to reduce child poverty. Furthermore, we have established a new children and young persons unit, which will operate across government, to, among other things, co-ordinate policies supporting the Prime Minister's pledge to halve child poverty in 10 years.
Thirdly, we have established a children's taskforce to drive forward all aspects of the NHS plan that relate to children. Fourthly, we have just announced that there will be a new national service framework for children. We envisage that it will cover the broad spectrum of services that children need to ensure that they start and continue life well and grow into healthy adults ready to play a full part in society.
The national service framework will deal with some important cross-cutting themes such as tackling inequalities, supporting children with disabilities and special needs and Involving children and parents. It will revisit key NHS plan themes of modernisation, breaking down professional boundaries and partnership between key agencies.
On Government policies that affect the health, well-being and status of children, many hon. Members referred to the need to improve co-ordination across Departments. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre includes a provision designed to achieve just that. I take the view that those are the responsibilities of the Government. It is for the Government to take action to ensure that their policies are effective and well co-ordinated, and the changes that I have outlined will take us forward substantially in that direction.
The House will be aware that, last year, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office announced a consultation on the outcome of a review of the work of the public sector ombudsmen in England—the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the health service commissioner and the three local administration commissioners. However, no hon. Member referred to it in the debate. The review was initiated in response to proposals made by the ombudsmen themselves and was carried forward as part of the wide range of action that we put in hand to bring government and public services generally into the 21st century.
With that in mind, the review of the ombudsmen was intended to consider the current arrangements against the background of increasingly integrated public services. We wanted to find ways to improve access to the ombudsmen and ways to improve the efficiency of the ombudsmen and their ability to investigate complaints involving different services.
The review was published last year, and its main conclusion was that legislative provision for the ombudsmen needed to be overhauled in response to the reshaping of government and that a new collegiate structure should be put in place. Clearly, that will require new primary legislation. The new structure, with all ombudsmen able to cover the complete jurisdiction, would ensure that the ombudsmen could respond to developments in the way in which public sector services are delivered to the public, including children.

669
The review also recommended changes to the ombudsmen's working practices and the way in which they connect with the general public, including young people and children. The consultation on the review's conclusions and recommendations was completed towards the end of last year and an announcement on how we will take that work forward will be made soon.
As we are committed to the modernisation of government and public services generally, so we are committed to the modernisation of the ombudsmen system. We recognise that things can and do go wrong from time to time. We also recognise that it serves no good purpose for the public, whether adults or children, to find it difficult to raise concerns when they are not happy about the way with which their complaints about public services have been dealt. We acknowledge that a single complaint may identify much wider lessons that need to be learned and point to action that needs to be taken to improve the delivery of the services concerned.
The structural changes that I have described are part of our long-term agenda to achieve real change for the most vulnerable children—children who are fearful and abandoned and who rely on us to make their lives better. In addition to the practical and positive measures that we have already taken, we have set in train important changes to the machinery of government that relate to children's issues. Those changes have been made since my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre introduced a previous Bill on a children's commissioner.
The changes will lead to an improved recognition across government of the needs of children, as well as an increased ability to monitor the practical impact of a wide range of policies affecting children. It is fair to say that one of the motives for my hon. Friend's Bill is a desire to improve the way in which we formulate and implement policy on children's issues in England. I strongly agree with that. The Government have, however, made important progress on those issues singe we last debated them. Better public policy making on issues affecting children will contribute substantially to achieving the goals that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and I share. I hope that he will welcome the changes that we have made in that sphere.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be aware of some of the other changes in the statutory framework governing the protection of children. We have the Care Standards Act 2000, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the Protection of Children Act 1999 and the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. All of those are substantial advances and will provide much better safeguards and protection for vulnerable children.
Hon. Members will also be aware that the Government are supporting major investment in new children's services, including £885 million in a new special grant for children's services run by local authorities. We are also investing substantially in the new sure start programme, which is promoting pre-school development. Our aim since taking office has been to introduce practical measures that will really help children. We want to encourage councillors to embrace the role of corporate parent and encourage all agencies to liven to children and to children's views.
The quality protects programme is be ginning to make a difference, but we recognise that it is a long-term project. Tackling problems that have been developing over many
670
years will take time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) rightly said, problems will not be eradicated overnight by the appointment of a commissioner for children or by any other similar mechanism. What is needed is a coherent programme of structural, legislative and policy changes to produce long-term improvements in the quality of services for children, the standards of protection and the status of children in our society. The Government are taking positive action in all those important spheres.
In improving safeguards for children, we have concentrated on the most vulnerable children—the ones who need our help most urgently. As many hon. Members pointed out today, the Waterhouse report provides clear evidence that those children have not been properly protected in the past. It is right to make them the immediate priority, and we have done so. I believe that our programme of change will lead to a transformation in the availability of safeguards for the most vulnerable children.
It is against that background that we have to consider the case for a commissioner for all children in England. We have to be clear about how a commissioner would increase the safeguards against abuse and exploitation. Consequently, we have to examine carefully the case for and the potential role of a children's commissioner, including consideration of links with existing structures.
We have to think carefully about how my hon. Friend's proposals for a new commissioner—who, in the Bill, would have the power to pursue individual complaints—would fit in with the current continuing review of the role and work of the various ombudsmen. I believe that there is a strong case for considering, in a properly joined-up way, the issue of complaints about the delivery of public services. However, although we certainly accept the need to improve public services and for those services to be responsive to criticism—that applies as much to children's services as to any other services—I am not sure that legislation removed from the context of the review of ombudsmen is currently the best way forward.
Therefore, as my hon. Friend will know, because we have discussed the matter, I am not able today to lend Government support to his Bill. However, I assure him that we are keeping the issue of a commissioner for all children under very careful review. As both I and the Minister of State, Home Office, have made clear in the past, we need to consider carefully the Welsh experience to see whether there are any other lessons that we can learn in England that could help to provide better safeguards for children. We intend to do that, and we still believe that that is the best way to proceed.
Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in this very good debate. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his most helpful and constructive remarks. I anticipate that debate on this matter will continue most constructively and positively in the future. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Employee Consultation Rights Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.14 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to have this opportunity, brief though it may be, to introduce my Bill. Such opportunities are rare, and some hon. Members have spent decades in the House without being successful in the ballot. I am aware that I am privileged and fortunate, especially as I was drawn only 17th.
The Bill proposes consultation rights for employees on large business issues that affect them. There is a pressing need for such rights to be written into law, which has been reinforced by recent events in Luton, the north of which I have the honour to represent.
Before dealing with the specifics, I want to set out the background to my decision to introduce the Bill. It represents a significant step for me on a long road: an adult lifetime spent trying to defend and advance the interests of working people. About 32 years ago, I became a member of staff at the economic department of the Trades Union Congress. At that time, the industrial relations environment was very different from what it is now.
In 1969, employee interests were represented almost entirely by trade unions, which is still the case today, but the unions then operated within a framework of legal immunities developed over a long period stretching back to the 19th century, and born of many decades of political struggle and industrial conflict. The system of industrial relations that had evolved was essentially bilateral, oppositional and sometimes confrontational. It was a very British way of doing things, represented at its best perhaps in this very Chamber. That way has much to commend it, and it would be a great disservice to democracy if the oppositional essence of our parliamentary system were to be lost.
In the 1960s, however, our system of industrial relations was being questioned, and not only by Government and employers. The Donovan commission in 1968 recommended that the system of collective bargaining should be extended and that the TUC and the trade unions should become more positively involved in the broader economic issues affecting companies and public corporations. Donovan led to the establishment of a number of industry committees of the TUC. The TUC also had an essential role in NEDDY—the National Economic Development Council—and its range of economic development committees, regrettably swept away by a Conservative Government.
At that time, the terms "industrial democracy", "worker participation" and even "workers' control" entered, or re-entered, the language of trade unionism and political debate on the left. The Institute for Workers Control, a radical left-wing organisation, had revived syndicalist ideas from a much earlier age. By the mid-1970s, the TUC was giving careful consideration to the case for industrial democracy, and looking with interest at other models of industrial relations—notably, the system of Mitbestimmung, or co-determination, which had developed in post-war West Germany.
672
The 1970s Labour Government established the Bullock commission of inquiry, which published its milestone report on industrial democracy in 1977. Jack Jones, the then general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, was instrumental in pushing the TUC towards a new acceptance of industrial democracy, ably supported and encouraged by my noble Friend, recently elevated, Lord David Lea. Both were TUC members of the Bullock commission.
Many trade unionists, however, myself included, were not comfortable with the new ideas. Sceptics were concerned that, by becoming involved with managers in joint decision making, they could become compromised and less free to defend their members' interests in a robust and forthright manner. Many managers and employers were also nervous about the prospect of workers and trade unionists having a consultative role in decisions that had until then been considered straightforward management prerogatives.
The collaborative approach of the Germans was viewed with some dubiety and suspicion by many in Britain, on both sides of the industrial divide. For the trade unions in the 1970s, accepting temporary pay restraint to help a Labour Government in a period of extreme economic difficulty for the country was one thing, but sitting around the table with managers in co-operative mode, debating and participating in decisions about the future direction of the company was for some a step too far.
At that time, trade union membership and strength were at an historic high, and the trade unions' relations with Government were closer than at any time before or since. Why should a system be questioned that appeared to be working so well and that had brought enormous benefits to trade unions and to millions of workers throughout the country?
Attempts to shackle the unions—as it was perceived—had been beaten off, and the balance of power between workers and employers had been evened up. To many in the trade union movement, the drive to industrial democracy was unnecessary and inappropriate, and could undermine what seemed to be a strong position. The unions looked forward to a future in which the economic crisis of the 1970s had passed and they could return to their preferred system of free collective bargaining.
On the other side of industry, employers were unenthusiastic about the apparent strength of the unions and their closeness to Government, although they welcomed the pay restraint negotiated as part of the Labour Government's social contract. Employers were also nervous about talk of industrial democracy and worker participation. Having trade union representatives in the boardroom discussing the company's future plans, with access to financial information, was not a prospect that they relished. The possibility of being required by law to divulge privileged company information to workers, well beyond what was required in company annual reports, was not greeted with unbridled joy in the boardrooms of Britain. There were a few progressive and enlightened employers who saw that involving workers more closely in company decision making could be very beneficial, but there were the exceptions rather than the rule.
What neither trade unionists nor employers foresaw was the political and economic whirlwinds of the 1980s and 1990s, two decades in which trade union and workers'

673
rights were blown away by mass unemployment and legislative attack. Trade union membership plummeted. Employees' bargaining power ebbed away and employers were put thoroughly back in the driving seat by a series of right-wing Conservative Governments beyond anyone's imagining in the 1960s and 1970s.
Since 1997, our Government have made most welcome progress in restoring trade union rights, although it is my view that we still have a long way to go in that direction. My Bill could be one significant step on the road to restoring a fairer balance between the powers and interests of workers and employers.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hopkins: I apologise to the House but as I am so short of time, I will not take interventions.
For myself, I have come to realise the limitations of the simple confrontational model of industrial relations by which he have set so much store in previous generations. It is right that employees and their representatives take an intelligent interest in decision making within the companies, corporations and authorities in which they work. To do this, they must have information and they must be consulted, and there must be effective institutional arrangements within which consultation and discussion can take place. Employees must have access to company information, especially about future plans affecting employee interests and, above all, about their job security. Without such rights, what happened at Vauxhall Motors in Luton last year can and will happen again.
Hon. Members will recall the anger of workers at Vauxhall in Luton at the end of last year at hearing the news of the closure of the Luton plant from the local radio. General Motors' decision to close the Vauxhall car plant in Luton came out of the blue and stunned the whole town. The announcement was leaked to the press before the workers had an inkling that their jobs were to go. I myself received a telephone call from the BBC's "The World At One", asking for my comments on the closure decision several hours before the workers at the plant were formally told.
The anger among the work force—and, indeed, among the whole local community—was intense and understandable. The way in which the decision was announced was no way to treat working people anywhere, and certainly not in a modern democracy. Over 3,300 workers were to be laid off; there were to be 2,000 redundancies, with 1,300 transferred to a sister company, IBC. The decision to end Vauxhall car production by 2002 had been taken by the parent company, General Motors, at either its Detroit or Zurich offices, but the first news in Luton was received via the local media.
It is upsetting enough to be told of the loss of jobs by one's own employer, but to hear it from a third party is wholly unacceptable. The wave of anger that went through the Luton plant was demonstrated on our TV news programmes in the subsequent days. I myself was outside the company offices in Luton when the managing director addressed a large crowd of Vauxhall workers demonstrating their anger.
I should say at this point that GM also announced redundancies at other European plants where there is already a duty to consult the work force. However, this did not and does not justify the company's treatment of workers either in this country or in the rest of Europe
674
Now is not the time to go into all the reasons why GM decided to close the Luton plant, much as I might wish to. One of the reasons must be that, despite Government progress in turning the tide of anti-trade union legislation enacted by the previous Conservative Governments, it remains easier, cheaper and quicker to make employees redundant in the UK than elsewhere in the European Union. That is not just a personal view, but that of the TUC, which is quite categorical in its assessment, and it is shared by workers at Vauxhall. The TUC believes that one reason for this is that, elsewhere, employers are under a much greater obligation to inform their work forces about business plans and difficulties.
The Vauxhall announcement was not an isolated case of unilateral decisions being announced by employers. Everyone will recall the announcement by BMW on the sale of the Rover Longbridge plant to Alchemy. Some 9,000 employees learned of the proposal and the implied redundancies from their televisions, radios or newspapers. Ultimately, the Phoenix consortium counter-offer was successful and saved many jobs. I am not sure that I share the Industrial Society's view that the original BMW announcement
"changed the course of British employment relations history"
and "served as a watershed". However, the society's view that
"BMW's duplicitous treatment of its UK workforce … was entirely legal"
is widely held.
There are other examples. The May 1996 merger of Royal Insurance and Sun Alliance was notable not only for the scale of job losses, but for the suddenness of the announcement. The first workers heard of the loss of 5,000 jobs was when the merger was announced as a fait accompli; the term "Rice Krispie redundancies" entered the vocabulary of industrial relations, as workers heard news of their fate over breakfast.
It is to seek to avoid such events in future that I am proposing my Bill. Workers should have a right in law to information and consultation about possible changes in company operations, and rights to be consulted on company plans.
British industrial relations have a long, honourable and distinctive tradition. That tradition is evolving—not static, with fixed attitudes between employers and employees. It could be argued that consultation between the work force of large companies and their employees is not typical of the British approach to collective bargaining, but both sides of industry recognise that circumstances change, not least because of the influence of the European Union.
Many trade unionists still look back to the days when they were immune from civil action by employers over the commercial consequences of strikes. Those rights were established in law early in the 20th century and arose from the Osborne judgment. Hon. Members will recall that the Osborne judgment ruled that trade unions were legal bodies that could be sued for the commercial consequences of strikes. The Trade Disputes Act 1906 reverses to the decision giving legal protection to strikers and their unions.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hopkins: I am sorry. I am not taking interventions for reasons that I have explained.

675
Realistically, that position, which lasted until the election of the 1979 Conservative Government, is unlikely to return in the foreseeable future, much as some of us might want that. The TUC and others now look to employee involvement in employer decision making harnessed to the benefit of workers. The world has changed, and the TUC's view of the way forward for workers has also evolved.
Consultation of the work force is already required in certain circumstances under the legislation enacted by both Conservative and Labour Governments. It is not a new idea. Consultation is already obligatory in a number of situations. On the surface, it seems that the extent of consultation is widespread in the British economy. According to ACAS:
"Many organisations are increasingly adopting consultation as an integral part of their day-to-day management processes and, as a result, are consulting directly with employees as well as indirectly through employee representatives."
However, the extent of consultation is actually limited and, sadly, diminishing. That view is backed by what is claimed to be the largest work force survey in the world—the workplace employment relations survey sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry. That covers 3,000 workplaces, and includes questionnaires from 30,000 employees. The survey found that, the larger the organisation, the more likely it is to have a joint consultative committee. It also showed that consultation has declined over the past 20 years. That is hardly surprising. During the period of the successive Conservative Governments, employment rights were systematically whittled away, and as a consequence employees were less likely to insist on being consulted for fear of losing their jobs.
I welcome the recent initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to consult both the major social partners on areas for increased consultation. My right hon. Friend was deeply concerned about the effect of the Vauxhall closure announcement on the work force. That decision was made in the face of an earlier negotiated agreement that proposed maintaining production at Luton with a new vehicle to replace the Vectra. I hope that my Bill is pushing at an open door as far as the Government are concerned.
676
The TUC recently launched its Partnership Institute. The aim of the institute is to identify and promote best practice in workplace partnerships, and develop those relationships that will improve productivity and workplace performance and enhance the quality of working life. The institute has been made possible partly by the DTI's partnership at work fund. Such initiatives will enable partnership working to develop. My Bill seeks to ensure that that happens.
The Bill would cover the public and the private sectors. I was pleased to learn that Unison, by which I was employed for many years, found in a survey that better consultation with staff and unions helps to motivate staff to work better and thus provide improved services. I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I still have close ties with Unison, as well as with my own union, the GMB, and my former employer, the TUC.
The purpose of the Bill is to require employers with more than 50 employees to inform and consult employees on major decisions that affect their organisation. I do not deceive myself that my proposals will meet with no opposition, but I believe that the arguments against it are diminishing and the barriers reducing. Some will say that the voluntary approach is the best way and that regulation is not necessary. I have three responses to that view.
First, regulation in employment is a helpful trend necessary to limit the vagaries of the unfettered market. Secondly, as I hope I have made clear, the benefits of consultation are enough to justify regulation. Finally, my Bill regulates only when the voluntary approach has failed. In effect, it proposes a floor of rights, in the same way as the Government's Employment Relations Act 1999 does in other areas. I have great pleasure in commending my Bill to the House.
2.29 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: When the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) began his garbled, pre-written presentation, there were only 16 minutes—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
It being half-pest Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 15 June.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMING TARGETS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 11 May.

  FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent to be signified.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Roger Casale: Friday 20 July.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman speak with the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. Casale: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright).
  To be read a Second time on Friday 20 July.

  EXORCISM OF CHILDREN (PROHIBITION) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES (INDEPENDENT APPEALS BODY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday April 27.

  SITING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Friday 27 April.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon Gentleman speak with the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill?
  Mr. Dawson: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak with the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley).
  To be read a Second time on Friday 27 April.

  DIVORCE (RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [2nd February].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Friday 27 April.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman speak with the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill?
  Mr. Gardiner: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 27 April.

  ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 27 April.

  SECRET SOCIETIES (REGISTRATION OF MEMBERSHIP) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  PATIENT CONSENT FORM BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Friday 18 May.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman speak with the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe).
  To be read a Second time on Friday 18 May.

  CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent to be signified.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 27 April.

  EDUCATION (STUDENT LOANS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Friday 27 April.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman speak with the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill?
  Mr. Thomas: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the authority of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)
  To be read a Second time on Friday 27 April.

  CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Friday 27 April.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman speak with the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill?
  Mr. Thomas: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the authority of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
  To be read a Second time on Friday 27 April.

  ADOPTION BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  Point of Order
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are honoured to see the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the Chamber. It would be helpful if he could make a statement to the House at this beleaguered time. Changes have been announced in grants to the tourism industry, and a lot of hon. Members have called for a statement. There is huge concern across the country about the tremendous problems that will face the tourism industry over the coming bank holiday weekend. We have not had a statement on foot and mouth in the House this week. Given that the Secretary of State is here—certainly for the first time I have seen him this week—is it possible for him to make a statement now?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have had no notice to the effect that any Minister is desirous of making a statement. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard what the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) had to say.

Ministry of Rural Development
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
2.34 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I am pleased to have an opportunity to set out my vision for the future of how the countryside should be governed. The debate is about proposals for a ministry of rural development, but it might better refer to a department for rural development. It is time that the post of Secretary of State was established to oversee the countryside.
For several week s on our television screens and in our newspapers, we have witnessed the carnage caused by the foot and mouth crisis. I do not criticise the conduct during the epidemic of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: I believe that he has battled tirelessly to control that dreadful disease. Nor do I blame the hard-working vets and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials on the ground who are working flat out to contain foot and mouth through the slaughter policy.
In recent years, MAFF has improved systems of control beyond all measure to ensure that we can have safe food that is traceable to an individual animal. Our systems are now some of the best in the world. I do not want to pre-empt any recommendations that might result from a public inquiry, but as a member for four years of the Select Committee on Agriculture I have witnessed the successes and failings of MAFF.
Four Whitehall Departments are trying in different ways to tackle the effects of the disease. A radically new approach is needed. We cannot achieve a properly integrated approach when rural tourism is overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the rural economy and jobs are promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry, the countryside is managed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and MAFF retains overview of farming and agribusiness. In The Times this morning, I noticed an advertisement that, rightly, promotes visiting the countryside. It refers to co-ordination of Government policy and bears the logos of all four main Government Departments involved. That is symptomatic of the problems facing the mechanics of government. We need a new department for rural development that will bring together all those elements, managed by new civil servants and led by a new Secretary of State.
In the past four, difficult years, the Government have done much to heir rural areas and have shown that they genuinely care about the countryside. The rural White Paper was widely welcomed as a blueprint for the future. It sets out the minimum standards that can be expected for rural services; sets 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief for village shops, pubs and garages; and promises more affordable houses and more help for small abattoirs, backed by £1 billion of taxpayers' money. The rural development plan provides £1.6 billion over the next six years for the rural economy and environment and for rural communities.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has delivered new protection for our environment and wildlife. The Government are rapidly expanding funding for rural policing: through a combination of reorganisation and extra money, we in the Shrewsbury division have put

681
50 additional bobbies on the heat since 1997. The Government are backing that with record increases in funding for village schools and rural buses, and new policies to protect rural post offices and keep village schools open.
None the less, rural areas face continuing crises that have resulted in farm incomes plummeting and too many services continuing to be lost. In the past 30 years, there has been a slow and steady decrease in the number of village schools, post offices, banks, pubs and shops. Rural bus services were devastated by deregulation, and train services to villages are almost non-existent. Rural areas have been hit hard by escalating fuel costs, although the Government have now ended the fuel tax escalator and cut duties. Furthermore, recent flooding has wrecked businesses and farms: in my constituency, some businesses have been hit six times by flooding from the River Severn.
There are now greater public expectations and demands—in normal circumstances—For better access to the countryside for leisure pursuits, which creates problems for the working environment and new opportunities. Make no mistake, there are no easy solutions. No Government can wave a magic wand and sort out all the complicated issues and problems affecting our countryside.
How do other countries govern their countryside differently? The Library has uncovered the following information. Ireland has a Department of Agriculture and Forestry that deals with farming, forestry, rural development and the rural environment. France has a Department of the Countryside and Forests that co-ordinates rural issues such as planning, water management, land use and protection of the environment, and deals with public rural services and the rural economy. Austria has a federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which covers farming, forestry, water management, plant protection and fishing, and is committed to improving the quality of life in rural areas. Australia has a dedicated Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which includes the Bureau of Rural Sciences for Sustainable Development, the rural communities programme—covering such issues as counselling services for farming communities, grant support and rural business advice—and a rural partnership programme for economic development.
The United States Department of Agriculture even has a dedicated rural development Under-Secretary, who deals with rural utilities, housing and businesses. There are 36 state rural development councils, co-ordinated by a national rural development council.
In many countries, the rural remit is already encompassed within Departments, allowing a more co-ordinated and integrated approach. Both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have taken steps to develop an integrated rural approach—now, it is England's turn.
To take such an approach would send a strong, positive signal to the countryside that the Government place rural issues at the top of their agenda. The Prime Minister has already taken the lead by postponing local elections and adopting a hands-on approach to tackling foot and mouth disease, for which he is to be commended. However, in future, we need a Secretary of State with the tools at his disposal, so that No. 10 does not have to spend so much time criss-crossing Whitehall to get the job done.
682
The decision to create such a department for England would lie solely with the Prime Minister. However, I hope that the debate on a new countryside department can begin in earnest. Since my election in 1997, I have consistently argued that we need a radical, new approach. In 1998, with the cross-party support of more than 60 MPs, I tabled an early-day motion calling for the establishment of a new ministry. As a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, I have taken every opportunity to lobby for it.
Some of my urban colleagues have suggested that a new department is not required. However, when we have a Scottish Parliament, Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland and, importantly, a London Mayor and a Greater London Assembly, the minority in the rural areas of England needs a strong voice.
The Institute for Public Policy Research recently proposed sending responsibility for agriculture to the Department of Trade and Industry, with any environmental bits that were left over going to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That would be an appalling political mistake and would send a terrible signal to rural areas that they are not deemed worthy of their own department. Right now, they need a rural champion at the Cabinet table more than ever.
What would the new department look like? The Secretary of State would be responsible for the overall direction and strategy and for representing the UK on agricultural and rural issues at the European Council of Ministers; and would co-ordinate all aspects of rural policies with other Whitehall Departments and agencies. The new department would take over the remit of the ministerial group on rural affairs from the Cabinet Office.
Some responsibilities would be transferred to the new ministry; while it would provide input for the rural policies of other Departments. The functions of the existing Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would be subsumed into the new department—including European Union agriculture policy reform; farming issues, such as diversification, fisheries, countryside matters, forestry, flood defences, farm animal welfare and genetically modified crops; and MAFF' s current agencies. Responsibility for food has already been transferred to the Department of Health under the Food Standards Agency.
The Countryside Agency, which currently pump primes projects in rural areas, would be transferred from the DETR. The new ministry would have input in the DETR's integrated transport policies. Those policies are succeeding—especially the rural bus fund—and should be expanded as a priority. There would also he input in the DETR housing policies. There would need to be close liaison with the regional development agencies and a close relationship with local authorities, including parish councils, to find local solutions.
Responsibility for tourism would be transferred from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Responsibility for rural economic policy would be transferred from the DTI, with input from the new ministry to the DTI—for example, on rural post offices and rural small business policies. Responsibility for rural employment opportunities would be transferred from the Department for Education and Employment and the new ministry would offer the DFEE input on policies for rural

683
schools. Finally, responsibility for rural economies should be transferred from the performance and innovation unit to the new ministry.
I hope that a Minister of State in the new department of rural development would be responsible for best practice for job creation and educational opportunities using the latest technology, which can be so useful in rural areas. Obviously, the DETR would have to retain its environmental protection and policing role and a new Select Committee would need to shadow the department. I strongly urge radical reform of the common agricultural policy, so that the new department would spend less time on hands-on bureaucracy and form filling, which MAFF has to do now, and more time on strategy, planning and co-ordination.
Although agriculture and agribusiness will probably continue to employ fewer people directly in farming, there is a golden opportunity for farm diversification and the wider rural economy to expand in a sensitive way after the current crisis. We need a new rural champion at the Cabinet table, with the resources and capability to define and develop a new vision for our countryside. The Secretary of State for rural development would bring together an integrated rural policy for the economy, communities and the environment and would have the power to lobby for fundamental changes to the CAP.
We need a British countryside where young people can find good jobs in a sustainable rural economy; where pensioners have a decent standard of living; where we have the best standards in small village schools, protection for our wildlife and a reduction in pollution; where every village hall or community centre is wired up to the internet; and where small family farms can make a decent living, carving out niche markets for high-quality food products and diversifying into profitable tourism ventures that quietly open up access to the countryside, so that people can see, learn and understand what a beautiful and precious landscape we have. For the sake of our suffering farmers and rural communities, we need to take decisive action now to turn that vision into reality with a new department for rural development.
2.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on securing this debate and on the sober and responsible manner in which he has discussed foot and mouth and the machinery of government. I pay particular tribute to what he said about the foot and mouth epidemic and about the Government's excellent record of investment in rural areas. However, our immediate objective must be to overcome this dreadful outbreak of foot and mouth disease and to return to normality—something that the whole Government are working towards, not just the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
No doubt, we will want to reflect on that experience in due course and, no doubt, that process will give rise to proposals on how things should be better organised in future. It would be most unwise of me to try to predict what recommendations may emerge, or whether they are
684
likely to cover the machinery of government. However, whatever the departmental boundaries, there has been the closest liaison between all the Departments concerned from the earliest stage. Let me remind my hon. Friend how close that liaison has been.
From the beginning, MAFF worked in close conjunction with the DETR and the Environment Agency on all the policy and practical measures that needed to be taken to contain and eradicate foot and mouth disease. As soon as it became clear that the epidemic was major and that its impact would be felt far beyond the farming community, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was asked by the Prime Minister to establish a rural taskforce to consider the economic impacts of the outbreak. The rural taskforce, which was set up immediately and has is now had three meetings, includes Ministers from MAFF, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. Ministers and officials from other Departments, such as the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment, have also attended the taskforce as necessary. The taskforce also includes representatives from the devolved Administrations and from the main outside stakeholders.
The fact that we were able to put together a taskforce of that sort in such short order is evidence that departmental boundaries do not impede co-ordinated working between Departments, whenever those boundaries lie.
As the seriousness of the epidemic grew, the Prime Minister rightly decided that it should be co-ordinated centrally. That was immediately organised. The Prime Minister now presides over a daily multi-departmental group in the Cabinet Office emergency briefing rooms. Again, wherever the departmental boundaries were drawn. I believe that that decision would have been taken. In other words, what is important is that those concerned should work closely and co-operatively together, whatever their specific departmental responsibilities. That has happened and is continuing to happen.
Of course, there are always different points of view about how responsibility should be divided between Departments. It is rare that a Government leave untouched the departmental organisation that they inherit from their predecessor. Governments are recognised for their tendency to reorganise blocks of work between Departments. In some cases, they divide Departments to sharpen the focus on particular national policies. In other cases, they combine Departments to achieve greater synergy, as we have done with the old Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment and with the Department for Education and the Department of Employment.
There is probably no perfect model, and there is certainly no perfect model that will endure through time. As circumstances change, priorities also change. Governments must therefore constantly review how the machinery of government can best be organised to deliver the objectives that they have set themselves. Moreover, priorities can change relatively quickly, and it would be bold of me to predict whether this time next year, there will be the same departmental organisation as at present.
I know that the idea of a department of rural affairs has been suggested by a number of people. Those suggestions date from well before the foot and mouth epidemic. The possibility was already being debated in the media a year

685
or more ago. Even then, however, there was certainly no consensus among the stakeholders about whether it would make sense. Some argued that there needed to be a creative tension between the interests of agriculture and the interests of the environment and rural development, and that this was best achieved by having separate departments. By contrast, others argued that it was wrong for a single industry such as agriculture to have its own Ministry, and that better policies would be achieved if conservation, rural development and agriculture were all dealt with in a single department. I emphasise that there has certainly been no general agreement that a department of rural affairs is the best way to proceed.
What is absolutely clear and, I believe, accepted by everyone, is that there needs to be close collaboration between those parts of government dealing with agriculture, conservation and rural development policies. I am not sure how far my hon. Friend is aware of the considerable progress that has been made over the past two or three years in ensuring that such collaboration takes place. Following the comprehensive spending review three years ago, it was deliberately decided to establish much closer joint working between the Ministry of Agriculture and the parts of the DETR dealing with rural issues. Those arrangements now involve regular meetings and round-ups between the senior officials from the two Departments and close working at ministerial level, particularly between my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture.
The co-operation has not been limited to the two Departments. Their agencies have also been brought together, and a number of high-level meetings held involving English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency and the Environment Agency. The latter is of course also sponsored by both the DETR and the Ministry of Agriculture. That collaboration immensely improved the development of policy on both sides. It meant, for instance, that the DETR had a major input into the European regional development programme, with its much greater emphasis on agri-environment as opposed to production subsidies.
Some will say that it would be even better if all the officials were together in the same Department. That was the burden of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. I am aware that in Scotland, agriculture and the environment have been brought together. Clearly, there are advantages, particularly in a relatively small Administration such as the Scottish Executive, but the balance of advantage is certainly not clear-cut, especially given the much more complicated remit of the UK Government.
If we set up a department of rural affairs, would the boundaries necessarily be that much tidier than existing ones? What would be put into it apart from agriculture? Obvious candidates would be rural development, and
686
landscape and nature conservation, but when one begins to think about those possibilities, one realises that the benefits are not necessarily so clear-cut as might first be imagined.
Rural development, for instance, is intimately related to urban development and there is a strong case for believing that they should be considered as two sides of the same coin. We cannot deal with the countryside in isolation from the towns. The development of one must affect the development of the other, and rural and urban policies must be considered together. To take but one example: if we can make our cities attractive places to live, that will lessen the pressure on the countryside. If we build more houses on brownfield sites, we will be able to build fewer on our green fields. So it does not necessarily make sense to deal with policies on development and housing in separate urban and rural boxes.
Even an issue such as wildlife is not necessarily clear-cut. We tend to think of wildlife as largely a rural issue, but in practice suburbia is becoming increasingly important as a reservoir of biodiversity. Is it really right to treat wildlife exclusively as a rural issue?
There is no doubt that water policy is of major importance, as the recent floods have shown. There is also no doubt that it is a major factor in any rural policy. Agriculture relies on it, but it can also be a major source of water pollution. However, it is not just a rural issue, and it is crucial that our policy for water should consider rural and urban needs and problems together so that we achieve a comprehensive solution.
It is because of the need for a co-ordinated approach on so many environmental policies that the DETR and MAFF both sponsor the Environment Agency. Unless one were to give the department of rural affairs the whole gamut of environmental policy, there would still have to be some form of joint sponsorship. That is another example of the difficulty in achieving perfectly tidy boundaries.
In other words, this is an open-ended debate on which there is unlikely to be total consensus. My hon. Friend used a number of interesting arguments, to which I listened with care. Some were good; others were less persuasive. I am sure that the discussion will continue and, if a department of rural affairs were ever created, new pressures would no doubt arise for a different form of organisation. The fact is that no set of departmental boundaries will satisfy everyone.
However, I reassure my hon. Friend that the issue that concerns the Government is not deciding the future shape of Departments, but devoting 100 per cent. of our energies to tackling the foot and mouth epidemic, supporting those farmers and communities most affected by it and ensuring that the energies of all Departments and agencies are focused on that overriding task.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Peerages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many applicants for a people's peerage are under(a) 25 and (b) 30 years. [157254]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand from the House of Lords Appointments Commission that there were(a) 22 and (b)

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many applicants for a people's peerage are over(a) 65, (b) 70, (c) 75 and (d) 80. [157255]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand from the House of Lords Appointments Commission that there are(a) 696 of whom, (b) 309 are over 70, (c) 121 are over 75 and (d) 31 are over 80.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the regional backgrounds of aspiring people's peers who appear in the column 'other' on the Commission's website. [157253]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that those listed as 'other' in the House of Lords Appointments Commission website are nominees not resident in the UK at present. They are either British citizens currently living abroad, Commonwealth citizens or Irish citizens. They do not therefore have a regional background.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the questions for answer by her which she has not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost in the 2000–01 session. [157169]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Two. Questions answered on 16 March2001,Official Report, column 764W, and 22 March 2001, Official Report, columns 314–15W.

PRIME MINISTER

  Wal-Mart
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates between 1 January and 31 July 1999 he met representatives of the Wal-Mart company; and whom he met from the company on each occasion. [157325]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will hold a public inquiry following the elimination of foot and mouth disease into the causes of the disease and the Government's handling of its consequences. [157612]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on 5 April 2001,Official Report, column 251W.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what studies are being undertaken by the Performance and Innovation Unit into the possibility of a national identity card; [157349]

  (2) what consultations have been carried out in the past 12 months by the Performance and Innovation Unit about the possibility of a national identity card. [157346]

  The Prime Minister
  The PIU have not carried out any formal consultation about the possibility of a national identity card.

  In September last year, I asked the PIU to undertake a project looking at privacy and data issues. Lord Falconer, Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, is the Sponsor Minister for the project.

  The project is analysing a broad range of issues involved in privacy and the use of personal data, including current government, private sector and international practices, structural and technological issues, public attitudes and the current legal framework. The project is also examining a range of issues to do with identification and authentication, including identification numbers and smartcards.

  Meetings
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions and where since 3 May 1997 he has met the creators of charitable foundations; what the purposes of such meetings were; and what their outcomes were. [157258]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

DEFENCE

  Reservists
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the call-out of reservists for operations in the Balkans and the region of Iraq. [157797]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since NATO operations commenced in the former Yugoslavia, the reserve forces have historically provided some 10 per cent. of the total manpower in theatre. A further call-out order has been made under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to allow members of the reserve forces to continue to be called out to support operations in Yugoslavia and in the region of
  291W
  Iraq. As in previous years, only volunteers for these duties will be called out. The new call-out order has effect until 31 March 2002.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he is making to the US Administration to ensure that the US maintains its commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter project; [156335]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the US Defense Secretary on the Joint Strike Fighter project; [156334]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of UK jobs which will be created by the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft project; [156336]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the prospects for continuing with the Joint Strike Fighter project without US support; [156337]

  (5) what alternatives to the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft project his Department has assessed. [156338]

  Mr. Hoon
  The importance that the UK attaches to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme has been raised regularly with the United States Administration in UK/US ministerial meetings. I took the opportunity to reinforce this message with Secretary Rumsfeld during my recent visit to the US.

  We estimate that up to 5,000 jobs may be created or sustained as a result of the UK's involvement in the next phase (Engineering and Manufacturing Development) of the JSF programme.

  The alternative options considered by the UK to meet its future requirement were the US F/A18E, the French Rafale, a navalised version of the Eurofighter and an advanced Harrier variant.

  The JSF is a US led project. I would not expect it to continue should the US Government decide to cancel it.

  Weapons Training
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many places were available in(a) March 2000 and (b) March 2001 on courses for HM forces on (i) improvised explosive device disposal, (ii) explosive ordnance device driver courses and (iii) biological and chemical munition disposal; and how many (A) applied for, (B) were accepted to and (C) completed each course. [156215]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: This type of training is carried out at three Army Training and Recruiting Agency (ATRA) Schools: the Defence Explosive Ordnance Disposal School (DEODS) at Chattenden in Kent, The Army School of Ammunition (ASA) at Kineton, Warwickshire and the Defence School of Transport (DST) at Leconfield, Yorkshire. Biological and chemical munitions disposal is taught as part of other courses at the ASA. Similarly, IEDD training forms part of courses run at both DEODS and ASA. Driver training for EOD Van Drivers is taught at the DST.

  Courses run throughout the year and information for courses running at any point during March each year is given in the table.
  292W

  Course title

  March 2000

  March 2001

  Place available

  ASA EOD (IEDD) Army Courses1

  28

  28

  ASA EOD (IEDD) Joint Service Courses2

  0

  28

  ASA Courses with BCMD content3

  18

  18

  EOD Van Driver

  8

  8

  DEODS courses with IEDD elements

  40

  44

  Places taken

  ASA EOD (IEDD) Army Courses1

  25

  30

  ASA EOD (IEDD) Joint Service Courses2

  0

  24

  ASA Courses with BCMD content3

  18

  18

  EOD Van Driver

  7

  8

  DEODS courses with IEDD elements

  39

  39

  Successful passes

  ASA EOD (IEDD) Army Courses1

  17

  10

  ASA EOD (IEDD) Joint Service Courses2

  0

  4—

  ASA Courses with BCMD content3

  17

  15

  EPD Van Driver

  7

  7

  DEODS courses with IEDD elements

  34

  39

  1 These courses are four and five weeks in length. Start dates were in February 2000 and January 2001. Places available and taken are those on the course finishing in March.

  2 These courses are of similar duration to the Army courses. In 2000, no courses started or finished in March, in 2001 the courses are still under way and will not finish for another week.

  3 There are two courses, one four months and one 10 months. Numbers shown are for the courses finishing in March.

  4 Not known

  However, it may be helpful to have the overall position for the training years ending in March 2000 and March 2001, which is given in the table.

  Course title

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Places available

  ASA EOD (IEDD) (Army) Courses

  80

  100

  ASA EOD (IEDD) Joint Service Courses

  80

  80

  ASA Courses with BCMD content

  30

  30

  EOD Van Driver

  80

  80

  DEODS courses with IEDD elements

  288

  276

  Places taken

  ASA EOD (IEDD) (Army) Courses

  80

  90

  ASA EOD (IEDD) Joint Service Courses

  75

  183

  ASA Courses with BCMD content

  19

  26

  EOD Van Driver

  75

  72

  DEODS courses with IEDD elements

  253

  259

  Successful passes

  ASA EOD (IEDD) (Army) Courses

  46

  62

  ASA EOD (IEDD) Joint Service Courses

  40

  29

  ASA Courses with BCMD content

  19

  26

  EOD Van Driver

  75

  72

  DEODS courses with IEDD elements

  236

  229

  1 Two courses ran with additional personnel

  Strategic Defence Initiative Contracts
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts awarded since 1 September 1998 under the Letter of Offer and Acceptance, 0006–98-C-0015, signed under the 1985 Strategic Defence Initiative Memorandum of Understanding, specifying in each case the name of the contractor, the value of the contract and the date of the award. [157281]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 March 2001,Official Report, column 620W.

  Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme is expected to be completed; and if he will publish an unclassified version of its conclusions when it is completed; [157344]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of unclassified documents which have been (a) issued to the contractors and (b) made public during the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme. [157401]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme is planned for completion in the autumn of 2001. An unclassified summary of the report will subsequently be published and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House. The only unclassified document made available to contractors and made public, is that covering the Terms of Reference. In this regard I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 203W.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which locations nuclear warheads withdrawn from active service are stored; and if he will make a statement on the use to which nuclear material recovered from redundant warheads is put. [156376]

  Mr. Hoon
  Nuclear warheads are stored at Faslane and Coulport, before they are returned to the Atomic Weapons Establishment for dismantling.

  Nuclear material retained for defence purposes, including that recovered from redundant warheads, is recycled within the UK's defence programme. Nuclear material recovered from redundant warheads which is surplus to defence needs either has been or will be transferred into safeguard arrangements and will be subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Territorial Army Reserve
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list(a) the designated strength and (b) the number enlisted in each battalion or unit of the Territorial Army Reserve; what action is being taken to fill vacancies; and if he will make a statement; [157090]

  (2) how many members of the Territorial Army Reserve attached to units which were disbanded under the Strategic Defence Review (a) transferred to other Army TA units, (b) transferred to other reserve occupations and (c) joined the services full time; how many left the TA; and if he will make a statement. [157091]

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

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the designated strength of the Territorial Army Reserve is; and what the number enlisted is. [157092]
  294W
  Dr. Moonie
  The latest available figures give the numbers enlisted into the Territorial Army as 40,684 against an establishment of 41,204.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces were deployed in the first instance in support of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to deal with the foot and mouth outbreak; and how many members of the armed forces were so deployed on 3 April. [157418]

  Mr. Spellar
  In response to initial requests from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), a small number of military specialists—vets and logistic planners—were deployed on 16 March to help in dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak. Since then, the armed forces have continued to respond to further requests for support. The total number of troops deployed as at 3 April was 1,544. Additional troops are on reduced notice to move, pending further requests for assistance.

  Atlantic Star
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek advice from his Department's Historic Branch on the contribution made in the battle of the Atlantic by the Polar Bears, in securing Iceland in 1941, and on whether they are entitled to the Atlantic Star. [157420]

  Dr. Moonie
  The men of the 49th West Riding Division whose divisional sign was a Polar Bear, formed the core of the British garrison of Iceland between the late spring of 1941 until the end of 1942 when responsibility for the garrison passed wholly to the United States forces who began to arrive there in the summer of 1941.

  The securing of Iceland by this garrison made possible the subsequent basing there of Allied aircraft to carry out anti-submarine patrols and thus provide further support to the Allied convoys on which so much depended. Further, the island was used as an assembly point for convoys to Russia.

  However, the land garrison did not participate directly in the operations contributing to the Battle of the Atlantic, and accordingly land service on Iceland was not included among the categories of service conferring eligibility for the Atlantic Star. This campaign award and the other Campaign Stars and War Medals, were considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals for the 1939–45 War and subsequently agreed by the King.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek advice from his Department's Historic Branch on the contribution made by 269 Squadron while operating out of Iceland in securing the Enigma code technology from a captured U-Boat; and if Squadron members are entitled to the Atlantic Star. [157419]

  Dr. Moonie
  Number 269 Squadron made a distinguished contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic, including sinking several enemy submarines and playing a major role in the capture of U-570 in August 1941. The
  295W
  surrender of U-570 did produce valuable intelligence on enemy submarines. Unfortunately, the unavoidable lapse in time between the surrender of the vessel to 269 Squadron and the arrival of a Royal Navy surface warship allowed the U-boat crew to throw overboard, or otherwise destroy, all the submarine's Enigma equipment and codebooks.

  Members of 269 Squadron who meet the necessary qualifying criteria are eligible for the award of the Atlantic Star.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will meet representatives of the 49th Infantry Division Association to discuss members' entitlement to the Atlantic Star. [157421]

  Dr. Moonie
  The basic qualifying criteria for Second World War medals were agreed by the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals in 1946. It would not be appropriate to attempt to review, with a view to altering contemporary decisions, events which happened more than 50 years ago. A meeting with the members of the 49th Infantry Division Association would not, therefore, be helpful to them.

  Medal entitlement is examined on an individual basis. Members of the 49th Infantry Division Association who feel that they are entitled to the Atlantic Star should write, individually, to the Army Medal Office enclosing as much information concerning their service as possible. Their case will then be considered.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria were laid down for service men and women to be entitled to the Atlantic Star; and if he will make a statement. [157417]

  Dr. Moonie
  The qualifying criteria for the campaign stars and medals instituted for service during the Second World War, including the Atlantic Star, were published by the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals in Command Paper 6633 in May 1945 and amended by Command Paper 6833 in June 1946. Copies of both these documents are in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if bombs coated with depleted uranium were used in the most recent bombing of Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [157415]

  Mr. Hoon
  Bombs coated with depleted uranium were not used on the most recent occasion that coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no fly zone responded in self-defence against the Iraqi Air Defence System.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for the most recent bombing of Iraq by the UK and USA. [157414]

  Mr. Hoon
  Coalition aircraft carrying out legitimate patrols of the Iraqi no fly zones are authorised to respond in self-defence to Iraqi efforts to shoot them down. This is the only basis on which weapons have been released over Iraq since Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with(a) her EU counterparts and (b) the UN concerning World Food Programme supplies for Sudan. [156895]

  Clare Short
  My Department is in regular contact with(a) the EU in Brussels, both the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and the Food Aid Unit, about their plans for food aid to Sudan this year: We have also discussed Sudan with (b) the UN and World Food Programme (WFP) in London, Rome and Khartoum. WFP have asked for 150,000 metric tonnes and we expect a substantial part of this to be provided by contributions from EU member states and the United States. We understand the European Commission will make available 12,000 tonnes for drought and related needs in the north.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list her Department's contributions to the World Food Programme earmarked for Sudan since 1997. [156892]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997, the Department for International Development has earmarked £14.4 million for Sudan through the World Food Programme. This contribution was disbursed over 1998 and 1999. No contribution was considered necessary in 2000. We are considering our response in 2001 as the humanitarian situation demands.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on current food deficit levels in Sudan. [156896]

  Clare Short
  There are indications there may be food shortages in some part of Sudan this year. We are monitoring the situation closely both from London and through our DFID representative at the British Embassy in Khartoum. My humanitarian adviser will also be visiting Sudan in May to assess needs and make recommendations.

  Philippines
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the approval by her Department of the National Roads Bridge Replacement Project in the Philippines. [157855]

  Clare Short
  I have recently agreed a commitment of DFID funds of up to £8.75 million to this project. This will be the final project funded under the Aid and Trade Provision (ATP).

  The 1997 White Paper on International Development committed the Government to focus all future development assistance on poverty reduction, and, therefore to end the ATP scheme.

  We also agreed to honour ATP commitments already made and to do our best to make them more poverty focused. This project will improve routes passing through poor rural areas of the Philippines.

  Departmental Procurement
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on untying her Department's procurement following the White Paper commitment. [157796]

  Clare Short
  DFID is untying by applying the Public Procurement Regulations from 1 April to invite global competition for all new contracts above a threshold value of £93,896. Implementation will be a challenge and we have agreed to share the practical lessons with other development agencies in line with our commitment to international untying. The new policy will not disrupt current programmes. For this financial year only, DFID will consider extension to current contracts where that is necessary for operational reasons and the initial invitation to tender made it clear that a contract may be extended.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she has recently reviewed the effectiveness of United Kingdom development efforts in Zimbabwe. [157802]

  Clare Short
  I have since 1997 kept our development programme in Zimbabwe under regular review. We remain committed to helping the poorest in Zimbabwe who are suffering the combined effect of economic mismanagement and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. But the situation in Zimbabwe is difficult and we continue to work only where we are confident our support can be effective.

  For this reason we have today written to the Zimbabwe Government informing them that we are ending our support to the Privatisation Agency of Zimbabwe and to a Trade Policy Capacity Building Programme. In the continued absence of Government policies likely to reverse current economic decline and reduce poverty, I concluded that these projects were likely to have little beneficial impact for the people of Zimbabwe.

  Micro-finance Institutions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to encourage access to micro-finance institutions in developing countries. [156598]

  Clare Short
  Gaining access to simple, low cost savings and insurance services helps poor families in developing countries to reduce their vulnerability to economic shocks. Small-scale loans from micro-finance institutions (MFIs) also play a very important role in encouraging entrepreneurs to invest in their business, where they are unable to obtain a loan from a conventional commercial bank.

  Despite the success of many MFIs in extending savings and credit sustainability to the poor these services still reach only a tiny proportion of those that need them. Recognising the importance of MFIs in reducing poverty, DFID provides technical and financial support to raise standards in micro-finance, to improve commercial viability, and to extend outreach to millions more poor families. This support is provided in a number of ways.
  298W
  DFID is a founding member of the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP). CGAP is an international coalition of donors and practitioners working to improve the quality and scale of micro-finance services worldwide, through the development and dissemination of best practice.

  DFID supports a large number of MFIs directly, including BRAC and PROSHIKA in Bangladesh, FINCA in Tanzania and KASHF in Pakistan.

  DFID also encourages innovation in the provision of financial services to the poor. It supports a micro-leasing company in Uganda, and the replication of indigenous savings methodologies through MFIs in east and southern Africa under the "MicroSave" initiative.

  Finally, DFID strengthens links between MFIs and mainstream capital markets—whether commercial banks or equity investors—so as to mainstream micro-finance in the financial markets of developing countries.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Green Paper on mercenaries will be published; and what are the reasons for the delay. [156151]

  Mr. Battle
  Unfortunately, it proved impossible to publish the Green Paper on mercenary activity as expected by the end of November 2000.

  The issue is a complex one. It is important therefore to work carefully through the details. I can assure the House that work on the Paper is continuing.

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts officials in his Department have had with representatives of private military companies since guidelines were introduced as a result of the Legg Inquiry. [156152]

  Mr. Battle
  There is no accepted definition of a private military company. Since guidance was introduced, contacts have been recorded with 15–20 companies which may be judged to fall within the category of private military/security companies. These have been principally inquiries regarding general HMG policy towards particular parts of the world.

  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of private military companies that are operating out of the UK. [156153]

  Mr. Battle
  Due to difficulties of definition, the possible blurring of boundaries between private military companies and private security companies, and the frequent shift of company identities and locations in this sector, there is no current definitive estimate of the number of private military companies operating out of the UK.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sri Lankan authorities concerning the attack on 18 February upon a Christian church in the Hingurangoda district of Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [157243]

  Mr. Wilson
  We condemn all such acts of violence against civilians wishing to exercise their right to religious freedom. We are pleased to see that the Sri Lankan Government have condemned this unprovoked attack and that the President has ordered an immediate inquiry. We hope that this will be completed soon and that it will be open and transparent.

  British Forces' Detention (Soviet Union)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations have been made in collaboration with the Commonwealth of Independent States on the detention of members of the British Forces in the Soviet Union after(a) the Second World War and (b) the Korean War; and if he will make a statement. [156772]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Advantage was taken of the changed climate at the end of the Cold War to liaise with the Russian authorities on whether they possessed information on the few British Service men whose fate as prisoners of war remains unknown following the Second World War and Korean War, in spite of extensive investigation.

  Class reference1

  HC no.

  Cmd no.22

  Departments

  Date laid

  I

  182

  DFEE

  31 January 2001

  I

  189

  Teachers Pension Scheme

  31 January 2001

  I

  155

  Ofsted

  25 January 2001

  II

  188

  NHS Pension Scheme (England and Wales)

  31 January 2001

  II

  194

  Department of Health

  31 January 2001

  III

  5054

  Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions

  30 March 2001

  III

  176

  Ofwat

  31 January 2001

  III

  184

  ORR

  31 January 2001

  IV

  5055

  Home Office

  30 March 2001

  IV

  191

  Charity Commission

  31 January 2001

  V

  5056

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  30 March 2001

  V

  5060

  Treasury Solicitors

  30 March 2001

  V

  193

  Crown Prosecution Service

  31 January 2001

  V

  134

  Public Records Office

  25 January 2001

  V

  198

  Serious Fraud Office

  31 January 2001

  V

  199

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  31 January 2001

  VI

  4

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme—MOD

  13 December 2000

  VI

  50

  Defence—MOD Consolidated

  31 January 2001

  VII

  195

  FCO

  31 January 2001

  VIII

  116

  DfID

  31 January 2001

  VIII

  187

  DfID—Superannuation Pensions

  31 January 2001

  IX

  11

  DTI—Main

  20 December 2000

  IX

  51

  ECGD

  20 December 2000

  IX

  24

  Ofgem

  20 December 2000

  IX

  75

  OFT

  31 January 2001

  IX

  151

  Oftel

  31 January 2001

  IX

  10

  UK Atomic Energy Authority—DTI

  20 December 2000

  X

  5057

  MAFF

  30 March 2001

  X

  196

  Forestry Commission

  31 January 2001

  X

  201

  Forestry Commission Pension Scheme

  31 January 2001

  X

  833

  Intervention Board Executive Agency

  9 November 2000

  XI

  181

  DCMS

  31 January 2001

  XII

  183

  DSS

  31 January 2001

  XIII

  186

  Scotland Office

  31 January 2001

  300W
  This and further detailed research into allegations that British Service men were detained by the Soviet Union after the Second World War has revealed no evidence that the Soviet authorities had a policy of detaining British Service men. Equally, no evidence has been found that British prisoners of war were detained in Korea or elsewhere after the post-armistice repatriations at the end of the Korean War.

TREASURY

  Opinion Polling
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) quantitative and (b) qualitative analytical work Her Majesty's Treasury has commissioned from GGC/NOP since 1 May 1997; and what was (i) the cost of the contract and (ii) the specific nature of the work commissioned. [155661]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: None.

  Resource Accounts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the resource accounts for each class for 1999–2000 were laid before Parliament; and from what date in each case copies were available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. [155444]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]: The dates on which departmental resource accounts were laid before the House of Commons are listed in the table.
  301W

  Class reference1

  HC no.

  Cmd no.22

  Departments

  Date laid

  XIV

  96

  Wales Office

  24 January 2001

  XV

  5058

  Northern Ireland Office

  30 March 2001

  XVI

  5062

  HM Treasury

  30 March 2001

  XVI

  192

  Crown Estate

  31 January 2001

  XVI

  165

  Customs and Excise

  31 January 2001

  XVI

  830

  Department of National Savings

  2 November 2000

  XVI

  153

  GAD

  31 January 2001

  XVI

  129

  Inland Revenue

  24 January 2001

  XVI

  798

  National Investment and Loans Office

  22 November 2000

  XVII

  185

  Office for National Statistics

  31 January 2001

  XVII

  5053

  Cabinet Office

  30 March 2001

  XVII

  5059

  Security and Intelligence Agencies

  4 April 2001

  XVII

  5061

  Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation

  30 March 2001

  XVII

  190

  Central Office for Information

  31 January 2001

  XVII

  197

  Privy Council Office

  31 January 2001

  1 The system of 'class' and 'vote' numbering applies solely to appropriation accounts rather than resource accounts; the numbers above indicate the corresponding 'class' of the Departments' appropriation account

  2 With the agreement of the NAO, these accounts were due for presentation as Command Papers by 30 March 2001

  Provision of copies of these accounts by the Vote Office is a matter for the House Authorities, though I understand that these accounts should be available to hon. Members within a few days of being laid.

  Foot and Mouth
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if roll-over relief is available to farmers receiving lump sum compensation for foot and mouth disease who wish to reinvest in livestock in future years. [156900]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Animals used in a farming trade are not chargeable assets for capital gains purposes. They are part of a farmer's trading stock so that any compensation for their loss will be on revenue rather than capital account and form part of the farmer's trading income.

  Compensation received for animals that have been compulsorily slaughtered is treated in the same way as the proceeds would have been if the animals had been sold. As this is income for tax purposes capital gains tax roll-over relief is not applicable.

  Where the herd basis applies, the profit from the disposal of production animals is deferred until they are replaced and the profit is exempt if they are not replaced. Special rules allow profits on the disposal of other animals compulsorily slaughtered to be spread over three years.

  The Revenue and Customs are committed to helping individuals and businesses in difficulty as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. They will respond sympathetically in all cases where customers need help in understanding their entitlements or who are experiencing difficulty in paying tax or national insurance. The Revenue Departments have set up a joint helpline. The number is 0845 300 0157.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if applications for temporary rate reductions made because of the foot and mouth epidemic will be given priority over outstanding appeals against the 2000 rating list; [157380]
  302W
  (2) what targets have been given to the Valuation Office for determining applications for temporary reductions in business rates on the grounds of the impact of the foot and mouth crisis; [157381]

  (3) how many applications have been made for a temporary reduction in business rates arising from the foot and mouth epidemic. [157382]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In England and Wales to date there have been at least 23,000 appeals made for a temporary reduction in rating assessments on the grounds of the impact of foot and mouth. It will be the Valuation Office Agency's policy to prioritise dealing with such applications. The Valuation Office Agency has recently introduced a system for the structured programming of appeals against rating assessments. As a matter of urgency it is considering how, within this system, to prioritise appeals resulting from the foot and mouth epidemic.

  R and D Tax Credit
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms have taken advantage of the research and development tax credit for small and medium-sized enterprises. [157387]

  Mr. Timms
  Figures for the number of firms that have taken advantage of R and D tax credits will not be available until 2002, when firms incurring R and D expenditure have sent in their tax returns for the first year of operation of the scheme. However, enhanced capital allowances since 1997 and new tax credits to encourage investment and innovation have already saved business over £1 billion.

  European Community (Contributions)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total value was of the rebates on the UK's contributions to the EEC budget secured by Governments between 1979 and 1987. [157375]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of the United Kingdom's abatement for the years 1985–86 to 1987–88 can be found at Table 20.1 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm 1018, January 1990). Details of negotiated refunds for the years
  303W
  1980–81 to 1984–85 can be found at Table 3.3 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1986–87 to 1988–89" (Cmnd 9702-II, January 1986).

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the additional income received by residents of Cunninghame, South constituency following the introduction of the national minimum wage; [157396]

  (2) how many residents of Cunninghame, South constituency (a) have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage and (b) will benefit from the rise in the level of the national minimum wage. [157397]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, dated 6 April 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions about the benefits of the National Minimum Wage (NMW) in Cunninghame South constituency (157396, 157397).
  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds and was developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in using the NES and LFS separately for measuring low pay.
  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at:
  www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour_ market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp
  Estimates based on this methodology are not available for the number of jobs paid below NMW rates at Parliamentary Constituency level.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many recipients of Disability Living Allowance higher mobility component in Northern Ireland qualify because they are both blind and deaf; [157408]

  (2) how many Disability Living Allowance recipients, whose main disability is deafness, are aged between 16 and 64 and live in Northern Ireland; [157410]

  (3) how many Disability Living Allowance recipients there are in Northern Ireland; and how many there were in each of the last seven years, whose main disabling condition is deafness; [157405]

  (4) if he will publish a breakdown of disability living allowance awards in Northern Ireland for which deafness is the main disabling condition by (a) the rate of each component and (b) age; [157407]

  (5) if he will publish a breakdown of Disability Living Allowance awards in Northern Ireland for which deafness is the main disabling condition by (a) age and (b) type of
  304W
  award, indicating (i) care only components, (ii) mobility only components and (iii) combined care and mobility components; [157406]

  (6) how many recipients there are in Northern Ireland of (a) higher and (b) lower rate Attendance Allowance. [157409]

  Dr. Reid
  Responsibility for this matter has now been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what considerations underlay the decision to exclude housing benefit and income support on mortgage interest from a household's income when determining whether that household suffers fuel poverty, as stated in Box 10.1 of The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. [157452]

  Dr. Reid
  Responsibility for this matter has now been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times(a) Lord Sainsbury and (b) other Ministers from his Department met with Nadhmi Auchi of General Mediterranean Holdings Ltd.; and if he will list the (i) dates and (ii) locations of those meetings. [156883]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: Lord Sainsbury has met Mr. Auchi on one occasion, at a dinner hosted by Mr. Auchi on 23 April 1999 at the Park Lane Hotel, Piccadilly. The Department has no record of any other meetings having taken place between DTI Ministers and Mr. Auchi.

  Departmental Policies (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Amber Valley constituency, the effects on Amber Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157135]

  Mr. Caborn
  The constituency of Amber Valley has benefited from a range of initiatives since May 1997 including:

  Regional Selective Assistance

  A discretionary grant which provides assistance towards capital projects which would not otherwise go ahead and will create or safeguard employment in an Assisted Area. Grant totalling £3,405,000 has been offered to 10 companies supporting total capital expenditure of £19,126,000 with the aim of safeguarding 559 existing full time jobs and creating in excess of 160 new full time jobs.
  305W
  Smart

  Discretionary grant available to SMEs to help them develop technologically innovative products and processes. Grant totalling £643,819 has been offered to nine projects supporting total project costs in excess of £1,822,000.

  Enterprise Grant

  A new discretionary grant introduced in 2000. Provides support to SMEs investing in capital projects which would not otherwise go ahead. Grant totalling £286,389 has been offered to eight businesses supporting project costs in excess of £2,258,000.

  Business Link

  The Business Link network provides a wide range of business advice and support to SMEs. It is not possible to accurately isolate Business Link data for the Amber Valley constituency area. However, from 1997 to date, Business Link South Derbyshire, which includes the Amber Valley constituency, has helped a total of 2005 businesses and assisted 668 business start ups.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has received regarding using the Gibraltar international direct dialling code prefix 350; [156129]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the arrangement set in place to handle internationally dialled telephone calls to Gibraltar using the Gibraltar international direct dialling code prefix 350; [156133]

  (3) what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding the handling of internationally dialled telephone calls routed through Spain and destined for Gibraltar. [156130]

  Ms Hewitt
  We remain deeply concerned about the unsatisfactory situation of telecommunications services in Gibraltar. Spain does not recognise Gibraltar's international direct dialling code (350). This code is however recognised by every other country in the world.

  The Government of Gibraltar have brought to our attention the increasing problem of international calls from countries other than Spain failing to reach their destination in Gibraltar. Some calls from third countries are diverted via Spain by Lease Cost Routing technology, in order to reduce costs.

  We are working hard to ascertain the exact cause of the problem of dropped calls, and to identify the best way forward. There are a number of possible technical and commercial considerations which need to be examined. We have drawn the situation to the attention of both the Spanish Government and the Commission, and will pursue the problem as a matter of urgency.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact the Office of Fair Trading 306W
  inquiry into BSkyB will have on the timetable to switch off analogue television channels and accelerate the take-up of digital TV. [R] [157142]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is unable to comment on a Competition Act inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading while it is being undertaken. The Director General of Fair Trading expects to reach a view by this summer on whether or not an infringement decision should be issued against BSkyB.

  Postal Services
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who will represent the United Kingdom at the next meeting of the Council of the European Union (Transport and Communications); and what position the UK's representative will take on amending Directive 96/97/EC with regard to the further opening up to competition of Community postal services. [157391]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Small Business and E-Commerce represented the UK at this month's Transport and Telecommunications Council on 4–5 April 2001. There are no plans for a substantive discussion on the proposal to amend Directive 97/67/EC at this Council; this item is on the agenda for information only in order to provide a progress report and an indication of the Presidency's plans for taking forward the debate with the aim of achieving a political compromise at the Telecommunications Council to be held at the end of June. The UK supports the Presidency in its objective to work for an agreement on the further opening up to competition of Community postal services provided appropriate safeguards are in place to maintain the universal service at a uniform tariff.

  Civil Aircraft Projects
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Government aid has been granted by his Department, and its predecessor, in support of civil aircraft projects since 1971, excluding Airbus projects; and if he will set out the amounts(a) granted in respect of each project and (b) recovered by way of sales and licensing levies. [157377]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Since 1971 the following launch investment project(a) commitments and (b) amounts recovered, excluding Airbus projects, which the Government have made are as follows:

  £million

  (a)

  (b)

  To Rolls-Royce for the Trent 600/900 in 2001

  200

  1—

  To Rolls-Royce for the Trent aeroengine in 1997

  250

  7.7

  To Shorts for the Learjet 45 in 1995

  17.7

  1—

  To Rolls-Royce for the V2500 in 1985

  60

  29.6

  To Westland for the EH101 in 1984

  60

  1—

  To Westland for the W30–200 in 1982

  39.3

  2—

  To Rolls-Royce for the RB211 in 1974

  439.4

  277.2

  To Hawker Siddeley for the HS146 in 1972

  7.8

  3—

  1 Not yet due

  2 None recovered

  3 Levies not payable

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Litigants in Person
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many civil actions, other than in the small claims court, have been commenced in each of the last five years by litigants in person. [157360]

  Jane Kennedy
  Figures showing the number of trials in the county courts conducted by litigants in person are set out in the table.

  Litigants appearing in person during county court trials England and Wales figures, 1996–2000

  Year

  Number county court trials

  Claimant

  Defendant

  Litigants in person

  1996

  19,608

  2,400

  3,550

  1997

  15,511

  1,590

  3,020

  1998

  14,202

  1,080

  1,900

  1999

  13,437

  880

  1,660

  2000

  15,397

  1,230

  2,280

  Percentage in person

  1996

  19,608

  12.2

  18.1

  1997

  15,511

  10.3

  19.5

  1998

  14,202

  7.6

  13.4

  1999

  13,437

  6.5

  12.4

  2000

  15,397

  8.0

  14.8

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish guidance for those wishing to pursue civil claims as litigants in person which fall outside the scope of the small claims court. [157359]

  Mr. Lock
  The Court Service publishes a comprehensive series of leaflets, which explain basic court procedures starting from making a claim to enforcement procedures. They all include information that goes beyond the small claims procedure.

  The leaflets are specifically aimed at litigants in person and use plain English in a question and answer format. Since the Court Service launched its Welsh Language Scheme on 9 August 2000 some Court Service leaflets are now also available in Welsh.

  The leaflets are available free from any county court office or from the Court Service website. Advice agencies such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux also supply some Court Service leaflets to their customers.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Achievement Awards
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when it was decided that improvement awards should be given to all schools showing an improvement of at least 2.2 in the Key Stage 2 average point scores between 1997 and 2000; and what consultation was carried out prior to deciding the criterion; [157357]

  (2) when it was decided that improvement awards should be given to all schools at Key Stage 1 showing an improvement of at least 1.4 in the average point
  308W
  scores between 1997 and 2000; and what consultation took place with schools about the criterion for deciding awards; [157355]

  (3) when it was decided that improvement awards should be given to all schools showing an improvement of at least 4.9 in GCSE/GNVQ average point scores between 1997 and 2000; and what consultation was carried out prior to deciding on the criterion; [157354]

  (4) when it was decided that improvement awards should be given to all schools showing an improvement of at least 0.80 in Key Stage 3 average point scores between 1997 and 2000; and what consultation was carried out prior to deciding the criterion. [157356]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We consulted relevant national bodies about the design of the School Achievement Awards Scheme in May and June last year. We proposed then, and confirmed in September, that about 30 per cent. of maintained schools in England would receive awards, that about three quarters of these awards would be for improvement, that schools would be ranked by the differences between their Key Stage test or GCSE/GNVQ average point scores in 1997 and 2000, and that improvement awards would be given to the highest ranking schools. The minimum increases in average point scores required for improvement awards were consequences of this process.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy not to disadvantage schools which have been notified of a financial award by his Department which is based upon an administrative error; and if he will make a statement. [157385]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As the hon. Member knows, a number of schools were incorrectly told that they would receive a School Achievement Award. We have made it clear to them that they will receive the financial value of the award.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of the error made by his Department in identifying schools which had won achievement awards in 2001. [157384]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The cost of additional awards will be £1.9 million.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the use of homosexual role-play in school sex education classes; and if he will make a statement. [156774]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have made no estimate of the extent of this type of role playing in schools; Ofsted have reported no such incidents. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 places a statutory duty on schools to protect pupils from inappropriate teaching and materials. Our Sex and Relationship Education guidance is clear that teachers should be able to deal honestly and sensitively with sexual orientation. There should be no direct promotion of sexual orientation.

  Best Value
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations were held between his Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the content of Best Value Performance Plans required of local authorities. [156444]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department has been consulted about published documents on Best Value, including the final version of the statutory guidance on Best Value Performance Plans in DETR Circular 10/1999. Officials from both Departments meet regularly to discuss the implementation of Best Value.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the year of calculation for education targets in best value performance plans to a school year basis. [156441]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our aim in introducing best value performance indicators has been to minimise burdens on local authorities by linking them to existing data collection exercises. Some of the education performance indicators are calculated on a school year basis, apart from those for expenditure and for special education needs. Compiling these on a school year would create work for local authorities, and make education expenditure indicators out of line with those for other authority services. Furthermore, any significant change in calculation method would mean that local authorities lose historical trends over time.

  Class Sizes (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each year since 1992 the average primary school class size for schools in Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [156568]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The data requested have been placed in the Library.

  Information on class sizes as at January 2001 will be published in a Statistical First Release 'Class Sizes in Maintained Schools in England January 2001' on 6 April.

  The latest infant class size data for September 2000 were published in a Statistical First Release 'Infant Class Sizes in England 2000' on 1 November, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Employment statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics. Figures from this release show that since September 1998, 324,000 five, six and seven-year-olds have benefited from the Government's infant class size initiative. In September 2000, 30,000 children were in classes of 31 or more children, compared with 171,000 in September 1999. This demonstrates that the Government are delivering early our infant class size pledge, which is supported by some £620 million.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of those who completed a teacher training course were full-time teachers three years later in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [155649]
  310W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]: The information is in the table.

  Percentage of teachers who were in full-time teaching in the maintained schools sector in the third year after completing their Initial Teacher Training

  Year of completion of Initial Teacher Training

  Percentage

  1994

  66

  1995

  65

  1996 (provisional)

  66

  The number of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) in the maintained schools sector in England at January 2000 was 404,600, the highest for 10 years and 6,900 higher than January 1998.

  There was a growth of 2,300 in the number of people recruited to train as teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  From April 2001 new graduate recruits can expect to earn £17,000 a year (up 6 per cent. from the previous year) and starting salaries in Inner London will rise to £20,000 (up 9 per cent. from the previous year).

  Schools (Battersea)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the additional resources his Department has made available to schools in Battersea since 1997 according to sector; and under which scheme or fund they are provided. [154831]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information showing the schools in the Battersea constituency that benefited from capital investment under the New Deal for Schools is shown in Table A. These allocations formed part of the £4.651 million investment made so far in schools in the London borough of Wandsworth local education authority under the New Deal for Schools programme.

  The New Deal for Schools was introduced as a new additional programme targeted specifically at addressing the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had built up after 18 years of under-funding under the previous Administration. It has been in addition to other capital funds made available to the London borough of Wandsworth local eduction authority. In total, since 1997, the London borough of Wandsworth local education authority has received some £13.214 million of funding for capital investment in school buildings as shown in Table B.

  Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.5 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £8.5 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04. Capital investment already allocated to the London borough of Wandsworth local education authority in 2001–02, including the increases announced by the Chancellor in the Budget statement of 7 March, amounts to £5.942 million.
  311W
  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter sent to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 16 February for details of increases to revenue funding for schools in the London

  Table A: New Deal for Schools (NDS)—Allocation for schools in the Battersea constituency

  Year/school

  Project

  Grant awarded (£)

  1997–98

  Alderbrook Primary

  Replace gas heaters

  1135,000

  Joseph Tritton Primary

  Provide a secure main entrance with CCTV

  1998–99

  Chesterton (with Chantfield) Primary

  Replacement of three asbestos clad huts

  123,338

  St. George's C of E Primary (VA)

  Renew heating pipework system

  73,840

  Joseph Tritton Primary

  Major works to corroded boundary wall

  57,477

  Honeywell Infant

  Demolition of old dining hall and outside toilets and replacement with new

  194,419

  Honeywell Junior

  Demolition and replacement of old dining hall and outside toilets

  196,299

  Borough wide package of 22 schools

  Safety of chimneys/flue renewals

  2379,500

  1999–2000

  Included within a 12 school package:

  Belleville Primary

  Renewal of mechanical and electrical services

  2l,015,500

  High View Primary

  The Vines

  Wix Primary

  Included within eight school package:

  Chesterton Community College

  Asbestos removal

  2157,886

  2000–01

  Included within a 12 school package:

  Allfarthing Primary

  Renewal of roof and associated drainage works

  21,621,017

  Battersea Technology College

  Bolingbroke Primary

  John Burns Primary

  Chesterton Primary

  Replacement of temporary classrooms

  234,240

  1 Local education authorities (LEAs) were not required to specify individual project costs for phase 1 of the NDS programme, so the amount shown is the total allocation in that year to the LEA. London borough of Wandsworth local education authority holds project level information

  2 Denotes total allocation made to package projects covering more than one school. London borough of Wandsworth local education authority will be able to advise the value of projects at schools which have benefited from these allocations

  Note:

  Funding by sector is not readily available except where specific allocations to Voluntary Aided (VA) schools are identified

  Table B: All capital allocations to London borough of Wandsworth local education authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Annual Capital Guideline (ACG) Basic Credit Approvals

  50

  274

  1,614

  1,166

  Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs)

  212

  98

  26

  124

  Grant to Voluntary Aided (VA) Schools

  428

  229

  142

  715

  New Deal for Schools (NDS)

  135

  865

  1,016

  2,635

  School Security Grant

  36

  45

  59

  59

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Class Size Initiative

  —

  —

  115

  108

  National Grid for Learning (NGfL) Grant

  —

  292

  455

  580

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  23

  —

  Seed Challenge Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  133

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  659

  Additional Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  593

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  124

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  68

  Schools Access Initiative (Grant)

  —

  3

  26

  16

  Outside Toilet Initiative

  —

  66

  —

  —

  Total

  861

  1,897

  3,476

  6,980

  Note:

  Funding by school sector is not readily available, other than where specific grant to the Voluntary Aided sector is shown above. Other programmes may, however, include funding for Voluntary Aided schools.
  312W
  borough of Wandsworth. An extract of revenue funding allocated is shown in Table C. Information at constituency level or sector is not readily available.
  313W

  Table C: Revenue funding allocations—London borough of Wandsworth local education authority

  £ million

  Standard spending assessment

  Grants

  1997–98

  89.1

  3.1

  1998–99

  93.7

  1.2

  1999–2000

  98.2

  3.2

  2000–01

  101.9

  8.9

  Note:

  The following revenue grants have been included: DfEE contributions to the Standards Fund; Class Size Reduction Grant; Funding for Education Action Zones; Grant for Nursery Vouchers in 1997–98; School Budget Support Grant; School Standards Grant; and Education Budget Support Grant.

  Battersea Technology College
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been made available, listed by project and funding scheme, for pupils and teachers at Battersea Technology College, since 2 May 1997. [154820]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Most funding provided by the Department is distributed via local education authorities. The initial budget share for 1998–99 to 2000–01 financial years made available by Wandsworth Local Education Authority to Battersea Technology College is set out in the table. Figures for 1997–98 are not readily available. In addition, Battersea Technology College received £40,000 School Standards Grant in 2000–01. It also received at least £218,069 in 2000–01 through the Standards Fund. Figures for payments through the Standards Fund are not available for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The Department does not hold information relating to specific projects and project schemes made available at Battersea Technology College since 2 May 1997.

  Mailings to all primary or all secondary schools by school year

  Items

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  12000–01

  Primary

  Literacy and numeracy—items for action

  1

  3

  2

  0

  Literacy and numeracy—information/guidance

  12

  9

  10

  4

  National curriculum—items for action

  2

  0

  3

  0

  National curriculum—information/guidance

  11

  7

  25

  4

  Teachers pay and school funding—items for action

  2

  7

  3

  2

  Teachers pay and school funding—information/guidance

  8

  2

  48

  9

  Other material requiring action

  7

  9

  8

  9

  Information and guidance on other topics

  43

  59

  47

  19

  Secondary

  Literacy and numeracy—items for action

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Literacy and numeracy—information/guidance

  3

  2

  3

  0

  National curriculum—items for action

  0

  0

  3

  0

  National curriculum—information/guidance

  4

  7

  31

  4

  Teachers pay and school funding—items for action

  1

  3

  3

  2

  Teachers pay and school funding—information/guidance

  11

  9

  48

  10

  Other materials requiring action

  14

  14

  12

  9

  Information and guidance on other topics

  52

  80

  62

  23

  1 2000–01 to end March only

  A list of documents sent to LEAs since March 2000 has also been placed in the Library. My answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on
  314W

  £

  Budget share

  Per pupil (average)

  1998–99

  1,155,000

  2,608

  1999–2000

  1,351,000

  2,712

  2000–01

  1,930,399

  2,907

  Circulars
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by date the circular documents which have been sent by his Department to(a) local education authorities, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools since 1 May 1997; and how many pages each document contained. [148352]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: Our monthly batched mailings to schools clearly distinguish between documents requiring action and those for guidance and information. Since May 1997 schools have had an average of one action document a fortnight during term time from DFEE. Many of these related to literacy and numeracy, teachers pay or funding improvements. Most items sent are for information only.

  Since September 2000, we have sent less automatically to schools. Of the 47 documents sent to all primary schools since September 2000 only 11 required action. The main documents of substance were the guide to improve grammar teaching and the autumn package of benchmarking data on pupil performance.

  The position for secondary schools was similar. Of the 48 documents sent since September 2000 only 11 required action. The main document of substance was the autumn package of benchmarking data on pupil performance.

  The table shows for each school how many documents we sent to all primary or all secondary schools. Many documents went to both types of school and are counted in each list. The full list of titles is in the Library.

  22 March 2000, Official Report, column 571W, gave the number of mailings prior to this date. Page lengths of mailings to LEAs are not recorded centrally.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Foot and Mouth (Tourism)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to convey accurate information to foreign tourists of the impact of foot and mouth disease on human health. [157026]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department is working closely with the British Tourist Authority (BTA) to ensure that the message that foot and mouth disease has no adverse effect on human health and that Britain is open to business is conveyed to overseas visitors. Where concerns have been expressed, BTA's overseas offices have held briefings for the local media and travel trade to provide accurate information and reassurance about travelling to Britain. Information is also available to overseas media and the public through BTA's overseas call and visitor centres.

  BTA has been, and is continuing to monitor press and public opinion in all its key priority markets. On 20 March I visited New York to help spread the message that Britain is open for business and dispel all the rumours that had started appearing in the American national press about public safety.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if compensation will be made available to non-rural tourism businesses that have been adversely affected by foot and mouth disease. [157050]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what compensation will be made available to those in the tourist industry in(a) the Chorley area and (b) Lancashire following the foot and mouth outbreak. [157312]

  Janet Anderson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced on 20 March a package of measures to help those adversely affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. The Government are considering the need for further measures in the light of the latest developments.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on(a) the use of lottery money for the new Wembley Stadium and (b) the amount of lottery money proposed for the new Wembley Stadium. [157316]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport England have committed £120 million to the Wembley Stadium project. The bulk of this money—£103 million—was used to secure the purchase of the stadium site in January 1999.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has held with the Cabinet Office on overseeing the new Wembley Stadium project. [157544]

  Kate Hoey
  No discussions have been held with the Cabinet Office about the Wembley Stadium project.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how often meetings are held between him and the Chairman of the new Wembley Stadium Company; [157317]
  316W
  (2) when he last met the Chairman of the new Wembley Stadium Company. [157313]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet Sir Rodney Walker from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues including his new responsibility as Chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. as well as his other duties including that of Chairman of UK Sport. My right hon. Friend and I last met Sir Rodney on 1 February.

  Tourism (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the impact on tourism in Lancashire of the foot and mouth outbreak. [157311]

  Janet Anderson
  We are making inquiries of a range of tourism-related bodies to determine the impact of foot and mouth disease on tourism businesses. This research is at an early stage and therefore no figures are yet available. The English Tourism Council and the Regional Tourist Boards are also implementing research to assess the impacts at local level. However, the North West Tourist Board estimates that the potential impact on tourism income in the north-west is around £6 million and is threatening around 200 jobs per week. No figures relating specifically to Lancashire are available.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when and how the papers of the New Millennium Experience Company will be opened for public scrutiny; and if he will make a statement. [157244]

  Janet Anderson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 29 March 2001,Official Report, columns 715–16W.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to end the BBC's monopoly of religious broadcasting. [157259]

  Janet Anderson
  All public service broadcasters are committed to carrying religious programming. Such programming is an important element of public service provision and the Government reaffirmed in the White Paper "A New Future for Communications", which was published on 12 December 2000, that it will continue to be so. The White Paper invited comments on whether the current restrictions on ownership of broadcasting licences by religious organisations should be relaxed in the new legislation, and the Government are currently considering the responses.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what grounds Christian broadcasting organisations are not allowed access to the air waves in the UK; and if he will review the matter. [157260]

  Janet Anderson
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 disqualifies religious organisations from holding broadcasting licences, except where the regulators are satisfied that it is appropriate for such bodies to hold licences for licensable programme services, satellite television, or local analogue, cable or satellite radio
  317W
  services. The White Paper, "A New Future for Communications", which was published on 12 December 2000, proposed that religious organisations should also be allowed to hold local digital radio licences. These restrictions have been considered necessary to safeguard pluralism in the media and to avoid religious discrimination: capacity constraints mean that one religious organisation may be able to hold a licence where another may not. Nevertheless, the White Paper invited comments on whether these restrictions should he relaxed, and we are currently considering the responses.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Bereavement Benefits
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that widowers will get the new bereavement benefits from April. [157948]

  Mr. Rooker
  Bereavement Benefits will concentrate the help available where and when it is needed most: on immediate needs and on families with children. Men who are widowed on or after 9 April 2001 will be able to claim Bereavement Benefits. But existing widowed fathers, with children in full-time education whose wives died before that date, are also eligible to claim the new Widowed Parent's Allowance. Invitations to make a claim have been sent to over 13,000 men whose Child Benefit records indicate may be eligible.

  We have publicised the new benefits through relevant leaflets, which are distributed to outlets such as local offices, advisory organisations and doctors' surgeries, and can be found on the internet at www.dss.gov.uk. Advertorials in magazine titles which men are likely to read are due to appear in June.

  We have however identified an error in the legislation that will affect a small number of widowers who will inherit both SERPS and a contracted-out pension from their late wives. In line with normal practice the SERPS payment should be reduced to take account of a contracted-out pension paid by a private pension scheme. This is technically known as a contracted-out deduction, and is made because National Insurance rebates would have been received instead of National Insurance contributions being paid for a SERPS pension. The intention was to treat all widows and widowers equally, but for this group of widowers the contracted-out deduction cannot be made until the legislation is corrected.

  We will correct the legislation at the first available opportunity so as to treat widows and widowers equally. Those affected will be informed from the outset of this error and that it is likely to be corrected by future legislation. They will also be informed that they will not be asked to repay the extra amounts.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Disability Living Allowance recipients, whose main disability is deafness, are aged between 16 and 64 and live in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland. [157404]
  318W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  DLA recipients aged 16–64 in England, Wales and Scotland with deafness as their main disabling condition

  Country

  Number

  England

  12,000

  Wales

  700

  Scotland

  1,300

  Note:

  Figures relate to 31 August 2000.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 5 per cent. data

  Statutory Benefits (Crewe and Nantwich)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the constituency of Crewe and Nantwich have been awarded(a) attendance allowance, (b) back to work bonus, (c) business start up, (d) child benefit, (e) child maintenance bonus, (f) child support maintenance, (g) cold weather payment, (h) community care grants, (i) council tax benefit, (j) disability living allowance, (k) incapacity benefit, (l) income support, (m) industrial injury disablement benefit, (n) invalid care allowance, (o) maternity allowance, (p) severe disablement allowance, (q) social fund crisis loans, (r) stakeholder pensions, (s) statutory maternity pay, (t) statutory sick pay and (u) winter fuel payments since May 1997. [156256]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested as information on awards of benefit at constituency level is limited. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Benefit

  Period

  Number of awards

  Attendance Allowance1

  1 June 1997–30 November 2000

  1,600

  Council Tax Benefit2

  April 1997—March 2000

  8,100

  Disability Living Allowance1

  1 June 1997–30 November 2000

  900

  Incapacity Benefit1

  1 June 1998–30 November 2000

  2,700

  Winter Fuel Payment3

  1999–2000

  18,700

  2000–20014

  16,700

  1 Figures are taken from 5 per cent. sample data.

  2 Information on awards of Council Tax Benefit is in respect of the Crewe and Nantwich borough council area. Figures are taken from the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly Administration Returns. Data refers to benefit claims, which may be a single person or a couple.

  3 Figures are taken from the Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuel Payment exercise and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4 The Winter Fuel Payment figures for 2000–2001 are provisional. They are taken from a payment run in November 2000 and will be an underestimate of the actual payments made.

  Child Poverty (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children lived in poverty in Shrewsbury and Atcham on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [154655]

  Mr. Bayley
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of people's lives—including income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. There is no single measure that can capture the complex problems that need to be overcome.
  319W
  However a number of these aspects have seen significant improvement in Shrewsbury and Atcham since 1997. Between February 1997 and August 2000 the number of children in families in receipt of out of work benefits has fallen from 3,100 to 2,300.

  In Shropshire the proportion of 11-year-olds achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 has risen in English from 62 per cent. in 1997 to 79 per cent. in 2000 and in mathematics from 61 per cent. in 1998 to 77 per cent. in 2000.

  The annual report, "Opportunity for all", available in the Library, sets out and monitors the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion.

  Notes:

  1. Out of work benefits include Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance. Numbers on benefit are drawn from a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to sampling error. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Please note that any comparison of figures for February and for August may be affected by seasonal variation.

  2. Information used in earlier replies only looked at Income Support and income based Jobseeker's Allowance. We now include all the key out of work benefits to give a fuller picture.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the RSPCA regarding animal welfare during mass slaughter programmes. [156967]

  Mr. Morley
  Mr. Chris Laurence, Chief Veterinary Officer of the RSPCA, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister on 22 March seeking assurances concerning the welfare of animals destined for slaughter as a result of FMD. Subsequently officials from the RSPCA have visited Great Orton on two occasions to witness the disposal of animals at risk from FMD. I understand that both were satisfied that the welfare of the animals prior to slaughter remained a primary concern of the teams involved in their disposal. I recently met the RSPCA and other welfare organisations to discuss slaughter and other welfare matters.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to relieve pressure from banks on farmers and businesses affected by the foot and mouth crisis. [155426]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  On behalf of the Rural Task Force I have met representatives of the clearing banks to discuss issues raised by the impact of foot and mouth disease on rural businesses.

  The banks have made it clear to me that they understand the problems being faced by businesses from all sectors affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. Wherever possible they are keen to support their customers and any customers in difficulty or expecting problems to arise should contact their manager locally as soon as possible to discuss the options that may be available.
  320W
  The banks have also told me that they recognise that there will be longer term viability issues for some businesses arising as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak and that they will be pleased to work with the Government's Small Business Service to explore options including extension of the scope of the Small Firms Loans Guarantee Scheme to assist businesses in these circumstances.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  South East England Development Agency
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take following delays by SEEDA in its appraisal of SRB Round 6 projects; and if he will make a statement. [156686]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Eastbourne Regeneration partnership "Reborn" was successful in its bid for Round 6 funding through the Government's Single Regeneration Scheme and was awarded £5 million by SEEDA in July 2000. The partnership, in common with all other partnerships, was required to show that each of the proposed projects could demonstrate sound financial viability and value for money. Thirteen projects were put forward by the partnership but were originally lacking in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of the SRB Scheme. Considerable time was spent by SEEDA with the partnership in addressing and resolving these issues. As a result of the additional time spent by SEEDA on these particular projects there have been delays elsewhere which SEEDA has also addressed.

  I am satisfied that SEEDA has acted properly in ensuring that these projects meet the required standards specified in the SRB Scheme thereby ensuring the proper stewardship of public funds being invested in the region. I do not believe that there is any further action to take in this matter.

  Sewage
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many projects to solve sewage problems have received EU financial support through Regulation (EEC) No. 1655/2000 of the European Parliament during(a) Phase 1, (b) Phase 2 and (c) Phase 3. [156737]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Three UK sewage projects have received funding from the LIFE Programme since it began in 1992. Two were funded during the first phase of the LIFE Regulation, which ran between 1992 and 1995. The third was funded during the second phase between 1996 and 1999. The third phase runs from 2000 to 2004. As yet no awards have been made during this phase.

  In 1992 the LIFE Programme contributed euro 711.554 to a Wetland Reedbed Treatment of Sewage put forward by the Fife Regional Council. The project ran from January 1993 to March 1997. In the same year the programme contributed euro 352.537,28 towards a Continuous Microfiltration System put forward by a company called MEMCOR based in Derbyshire. This project ran from December 1992 to April 1996.
  321W
  The third project was from a company called Montgomery Watson Ltd., in Buckinghamshire, and was funded in 1995. The project ran from April 1995 to April 1997, and the programme contributed euro 301.254,48. The project aimed to demonstrate a sustainable, affordable wastewater strategy using aquatic/marginal plants for smaller communities of the European Union, and was based in Northern Greece.

  Further information about these projects and ones which have received funding in other member states can be found on the European Commission's website, where there is a searchable database with in formation about all 600 plus projects selected under LIFE I and II.

  The website can be found at http//europa.eu.int/comm/life/envir/database.htm

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 2001,Official Report, column 815W, on foot and mouth, if he will amend the criteria for entry on to the list of authorities able to give relief from business rates to include the incidence of foot and mouth cases within an authority's boundaries. [157088]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have agreed to keep under review the operation of the special grant for hardship rate relief scheme in relation to foot and mouth disease impacts and I will look at representations which individual authorities make on the scheme.

  Tudor Court School, Chafford Hundred
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Health and Safety Executive last visited Tudor Court School, Chafford Hundred in Thurrock. [157068]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has not inspected the Tudor Court School in Thurrock since it opened in 1992. However, following a subsidence incident in the school car park on 23 March 2001 the HSE contacted the local education authority, Thurrock council, to ensure immediate steps were taken to ensure the safety of pupils, parents and staff and make the subsidence area safe.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract between his Department and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology agreed in April 1999 concerning research that forms part of the farm-scale evaluation of GM crops in the UK. [157113]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of each of the four farm-scale evaluation contracts. Certain personal and financial details relating to contractors' staff have been removed.

  The farm-scale evaluations are being undertaken by a consortium of three contractors: the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), the Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI) and the Institute of Arable Crops Research (IACR). CEH leads the consortium and is the main contractor for the maize and beet evaluations,
  322W
  sub-contracting some of the work to SCRI and IACR. Similarly, SCRI leads on the spring oilseed rape trials and IACR on the winter oilseed rape, with some work sub-contracted to the other members of the consortium.

  The work is overseen by the Scientific Steering Committee. Following the pilot year, protocols for the work have been revised on the advice of the Committee. Details of the current protocols can be found in the six monthly reports produced by the research consortium and published on the Department's website.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if a farmer chosen to take part in the farm scale evaluations of GM crops in the UK enters into a contract to grow and manage the field of GM and non-GM crop with(a) the Farming and Biotechnology Industry Body (SCIMAC) and (b) the chemical company that developed the GM crop involved. [157158]

  Mr. Meacher
  Farmers hosting Farm Scale Evaluations on their farm do so by arrangement with the company that holds the consent authorising the release of the GM crop. The companies involved are members of the industry umbrella group SCIMAC. The crops are grown in accordance with the conditions set out in the release consent for that crop.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the voluntary agreement between his Department and the Farming and Biotechnology Industry Body concerning the farm scale evaluations of GM crops in the UK. [157112]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will ensure that a copy of the voluntary agreement with the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC) on the conduct of the Farm Scale Evaluations will be placed in the Library. A copy can be found on my Department's website http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/fse/scimac/agreement/index.htm.

  GM Fish
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the research programmes into fish genetics that his Department has been involved with in the last 10 years. [157275]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has funded a desk study and scientific literature review at the Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, to consider the environmental implications and risk assessment of GM fish. This work was published as a DETR report in November 1994; "Genetic Modification of Fish—a UK Perspective". ACRE has also published guidance (Guidance note 8, March 1997) for experimental releases and risk assessment of genetically modified fish.

  Copies of both these publications are in the House of Commons Library.

  Research into GM fish has increased steadily since the first published reports in 1985 and the technology now exists for the routine modification of a variety of fish species. Some modified traits may affect the ecological range of a fish species, for example increasing the temperature range in which they are able to survive and

  323W
  breed, or the rate at which the fish grow and mature. The implications of such changes would need to be carefully considered in the risk assessment before a release could take place.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list comprehensive risk assessment programmes the UK has conducted, under EU Directive 90/220 into the implications for human health and the environment following the potential release of GM fish stocks involved in UK-funded research programmes. [157271]

  Mr. Meacher
  There have been no applications to release GM fish under Directive 90/220/EEC in the UK. However the environmental consequences of the farming of genetically modified fish have been considered by my Department and by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE).

  The Department of the Environment published a research report on the "Genetic Modification of Fish—a UK Perspective" in November 1994. ACRE Guidance Note 8, issued in March 1997, provides guidance for experimental releases and risk assessment of genetically modified fish.

  The publications offer detailed recommendations on approaches to risk assessment and risk management for GM fish, and for emergency control measures. Guidelines are also provided for carrying out monitoring during and after the release.

  Copies of both these publications are in the House of Commons Library.

  Air Pollution Control Residues
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with EU officials about the pre-treatment and disposal of APC residue; and if he will make a statement. [157413]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Officials from my Department are engaged in ongoing discussions with EU officials on technical issues regarding the implementation of the Landfill Directive. The most recent meeting of the Technical Adaptation Committee where such matters are discussed took place on 3 April 2001. One of the issues that has been raised in the Committee is the circumstances under which wastes should be considered corrosive. Under the Directive, hazardous waste that is corrosive in the conditions of landfill, possibly including some air pollution control residues, is likely to be prohibited from landfill sites from July 2002.

  Fly-ash
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to classify fly-ash as prohibited waste; and if he will make a statement. [157412]

  Mr. Robert Anisworth
  My Department is currently in the process of transposing the requirements of the European Landfill Directive into national law. Under these provisions, hazardous waste that is corrosive in the conditions of landfill, including some fly-ash, is likely be prohibited from landfill sites from July 2002. Most waste 324W
  that is landfilled will need to be pre-treated in some way. This requirement will be phased in between 2002 and 2009.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what percentage of(a) fresh food outlets, (b) fresh food wholesalers and distributors and (c) fresh food processors were visited unannounced by environmental health officers or Meat Hygiene Service inspectors in each year since 1995. [145003]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. The numbers of inspections and visits to food premises by United Kingdom local authorities is as follows:

  Number

  1995

  828,937

  1996

  827,035

  1997

  787,047

  1998

  745,601

  1999

  734,573

  Variations over time in the number of inspections and visits may reflect a number of factors, including changes in the number of food premises and the risk-based frequency of inspections.

  As part of the Food Standard's Agency's arrangements to strengthen its links with local authority enforcement, a programme of audits of local authority enforcement services has been introduced. The audits will include checks on the adequacy and effectiveness of local authority enforcement services.

  In addition to local authority inspections, the Meat Hygiene Service attends licensed fresh meat and poultry slaughterhouses, cutting plants and cold stores for the purposes of enforcing meat hygiene and animal welfare legislation and carrying out meat inspection and meat marking. Attendance by approximately 1,600 inspection staff ranges from full time to weekly visits, depending on the type of licensed premises. MHS staff make no unannounced visits to licensed premises, except principal official veterinary surgeons, who visit to check the effectiveness of MHS staff in carrying out their duties.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will publish the latest figures showing the volume of correspondence received by Ministers and agency chief executives from hon. Members in 2000, indicating the target times set for replies and the replies sent within those target times. [157532]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The following table sets out Departments' and Agencies' performance in handling hon. Members' correspondence during the 2000 calendar year. It also sets out comparative figures for 1999
  325W
  (first published on 17 April 2000, Official Report, columns 386–89W). I am pleased to report that the table shows a steady improvement in overall performance.
  326W
  Hon. Members' attention is drawn to the footnotes which accompany the table and which provide general background information on how the figures are compiled.

  Correspondence from MPs to Ministers and Agency chief executives

  1999

  2000

  Department or Agency

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  15

  7,021

  60

  15

  16,137

  30

  Cabinet Office

  15

  552

  85

  15

  902

  88

  Crown Prosecution Service

  15

  30

  93

  15

  218

  100

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  18

  5,502

  90

  18

  3,240

  82

  HM Customs and Excise

  18

  3,009

  38

  18

  32,977

  68

  Ministry of Defence

  15

  5,488

  66

  15

  44,592

  78

  Army Personnel Centre

  15

  42

  84

  15

  38

  95

  DERA

  15

  35

  89

  15

  21

  91

  Meteorological Office

  15

  12

  83

  15

  16

  94

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  —

  —

  —

  10

  31

  43

  Department for International Development

  15

  2,750

  93

  15

  51,769

  82

  Department for Education and Employment

  15

  21,196

  75

  15

  22,318

  72

  Employment Service

  15

  635

  98

  15

  592

  98

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  15

  15,768

  45

  15

  19,636

  69

  Driving Standards Agency

  15

  124

  68

  15

  91

  99

  DVLA

  7

  855

  98

  10

  1,136

  99

  Highways Agency

  15

  357

  79

  15

  314

  78

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  15

  22

  91

  15

  19

  100

  Planning Inspectorate

  8

  204

  92

  8

  6310

  90

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  15

  18

  94

  15

  13

  100

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  20

  11,921

  75

  720

  9,020

  78

  15

  9,482

  37

  815

  8,121

  50

  Department of Health

  20

  18,346

  47

  20

  918,621

  50

  NHS Pensions Agency

  15

  51

  84

  15

  54

  85

  Medicines Control Agency

  10

  70

  68

  15

  25

  68

  Home Office

  15

  16,826

  45

  15

  1018,748

  1141

  20

  877

  79

  20

  121,289

  79

  HM Prison Service

  20

  2,514

  73

  20

  2,306

  75

  UK Passport Agency

  10

  703

  35

  100

  188

  100

  Inland Revenue

  18

  5,872

  49

  18

  35,770

  72

  23

  368

  60

  23

  13533

  53

  Valuation Office

  23

  24

  81

  23

  240

  92

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  15

  223

  95

  15

  204

  93

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  2,038

  82

  20

  141,844

  74

  Court Service

  20

  898

  79

  1520

  16845

  66

  HM Land Registry

  20

  53

  91

  20

  1641

  93

  Public Records Office

  —

  —

  —

  20

  1626

  100

  Public Trust Office

  15

  42

  95

  15

  16124

  88

  Northern Ireland Office

  10

  1,897

  78

  10

  594

  71

  Compensation Agency for NI

  7

  23

  100

  7

  16

  100

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  10

  37

  92

  10

  37

  70

  Office for National Savings

  —

  —

  —

  10

  16154

  86

  Office for National Statistics

  10

  275

  98

  10

  17167

  79

  President of the Council's Office

  15

  151

  81

  15

  271

  94

  The Scotland Office

  15

  105

  72

  15

  125

  64

  Department of Social Security

  20

  16,555

  66

  20

  16,283

  75

  Benefits Agency

  20

  2,033

  70

  20

  2,642

  1845

  Child Support Agency

  18

  5,661

  98

  18

  5,806

  97

  War Pensions Agency

  20

  477

  100

  20

  395

  99

  327W

  Correspondence from MPs to Ministers and Agency chief executives

  1999

  2000

  Department or Agency

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters of received

  Percentage of replied within target

  Department of Trade and Industry

  10

  20,889

  50

  10

  318,858

  60

  Companies House

  10

  19

  100

  10

  44

  100

  Employment Tribunals Service

  —

  —

  —

  10

  1930

  97

  Insolvency Service

  10

  22

  86

  10

  20334

  87

  Patent Office

  10

  308

  88

  10

  21311

  99

  Radiocommunications Agency

  15

  39

  97

  15

  20

  100

  HM Treasury

  15

  5,322

  44

  15

  34,061

  60

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  10

  40

  100

  10

  2235

  100

  Wales Office

  15

  61

  64

  15

  23344

  42

  1 Includes correspondence on the Intervention Board

  2 Letter addressed to the Law Officers but subsequently replied to by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In addition, the CPS received 490 letters direct from MPs between 1 January and 31 December 2000, of which 96 per cent. were replied to within 15 workings days

  3 Includes all ministerial replies, not only replies to letters from MPs

  4 Includes letters from MPs, MDLs, MEPs and Peers. Also includes 293 letters where Agency chief executives replied on Ministers' behalf

  5 90 per cent. of letters from MPs replied to within 20 working days

  6 Include 139 cases relating to Wales

  7 Excluding correspondence on migration and visa matters

  8 Correspondence on migration and visa matters only

  9 In addition, the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency replied to 537 letters from MPs on behalf of Health Ministers

  10 Excluding correspondence on Prison Service matters

  11 Excluding correspondence on Immigration and Nationality matters, the Home Office replied to 76 per cent. of letters from MPs within 15 working days

  12 Correspondence on Prison Service matters. The 20 working day target takes account of particular geographical circumstances. The target is the same whether replies are sent by Ministers or by the Director General

  13 Local office and "delegated" figures (where local officials have replied direct to MPs)

  14 Excludes letters from MPs to Ministers where Agency chief executives have replied on Ministers' behalf

  15 Target reduced from 20 to 15 workings days on 1 April 2000

  16 Includes letters where the chief executive has replied on Ministers' behalf

  17 Includes 113 letters where the chief executive replied on Ministers' behalf

  18 Performance has improved under the new chief executive. Since September 2000, between 85 per cent. and 95 per cent. of all correspondence from MPs has been replied to within the 20 working day target

  19 Includes 18 letters where the chief executive replied on Ministers' behalf

  20 Includes 313 letters where the chief executive replied on Ministers' behalf

  21 Includes 309 letters where the chief executive replied on Ministers' behalf

  22 Includes eight letters where the chief executive replied on Ministers' behalf

  23 These figures cover the Wales Office's first year of existence and first full parliamentary session. This has been a difficult period. However, the Office has now reviewed its procedures and has introduced a new system for handling MPs correspondence

  Notes on 2000 figures:

  The 1999 figures are taken from 17 April 2000, Official Report, columns 386–87W. Please also refer to the notes given with that reply. Departments and Agencies which received a total of between one and 10 letters from MPs during 2000 are not shown in this table

HEALTH

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, of 27 September, 24 October, 22 November and 22 December 2000 and 8 January 2001, relating to Mr. Dino Costas of Goffs Oak. [146896]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]: A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent on 5 April 2001.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will substantively reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of 27 September 2000, 24 October 2000, 22 November 2000, 22 December 2000 and 8 January and the written questions replied to on 23 January relating to Mr. Dino Costas of Goffs Oak, Hertfordshire. [151678]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent on 5 April 2001.
  328W
  I apologise for the unacceptable delay in replying to the hon. Member's correspondence and the previous parliamentary question. I know the Department's Permanent Secretary/Chief Executive of the National Health Service has written to the hon. Member apologising for the unacceptable delay involved in replying to her correspondence. The hon. Member's constituent raised a number of sensitive issues, which required a full investigation to ensure the information provided was correct, ensuring the constituent received a full explanation. This involved liaising with two different health authorities and a number of different sections within these health authorities.

  Departmental Policies (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tooting parliamentary constituency, the effect of his Department's policies and actions since 1 May 1997. [149863]
  329W
  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority and Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth social services authorities.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  125.8

  £ million (real terms)

  77.5

  Percentage (cash)

  35.61

  Percentage (real terms)

  20.15

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority and the NHS Trusts within it has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £6.6 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; and £138,000, £313,000, £408,000 and £266,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA has also received: £300,000 for the investment of cancer equipment which has already been delivered and is now in use; £4.5 million, £453,000 and £406,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £2.25 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £3.3 million and £2.9 million to deal with winter pressures in 1998–99 and 2000–01; £228,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01; and £35,000 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £184 million major hospital development that is being developed at St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust and £24 million development at Queen Mary's, Roehampton.

  Merton local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  26.736

  —

  —

  2001–02

  35.052

  16.1

  31.1

  330W
  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Merton local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,304

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  958

  797

  1,064

  Prevention grant2

  —

  78

  115

  Carers grant3

  —

  76

  196

  275

  Children's grant3

  —

  324

  512

  1,300

  Mental Health Core grant

  388

  524

  798

  4799

  Training Support Grant

  153

  152

  145

  4148

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnerships and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Sutton local authority's personal social service standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97

  Percentage increase

  Year

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  23.901

  —

  —

  2001–02

  31.174

  15.5

  30.4

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Sutton local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,253

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  882

  735

  1,015

  Prevention grant2

  —

  73

  107

  Carers grant3

  —

  71

  176

  249

  Children's grant3

  —

  250

  392

  983

  Mental Health Core grant

  242

  311

  407

  4408

  Training Support Grant

  140

  158

  174

  4136

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Wandsworth local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  63.679

  —

  —

  2001–02

  74.746

  4.0

  17.4

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Wandsworth local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,634

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,943

  1,623

  2,117

  Prevention grant2

  —

  158

  233

  Carers grant3

  —

  153

  417

  579

  331W

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Children's grant3

  —

  866

  1,374

  3,370

  Mental Health Core grant

  573

  881

  1,115

  41,118

  Training Support Grant

  215

  238

  300

  4252

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Ilford, North)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Ilford, North; and if he will make a statement. [152030]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority and Redbridge and Waltham Forest social service authorities.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority are shown in the table.

  Increase in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  86.3

  £ million (real terms)

  52.1

  Percentage (cash)

  34.55

  Percentage (real terms)

  19.22

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority and the National Health Service trusts within it have also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.8 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; and £96,000, £192,000, £292,000 and £185,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatient) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority has also received: £55,000 for the investment of cancer equipment which has already been delivered and is now in use; £3.2 million, £355,000 and £334.000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £1.8 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £3.3 million and £1.6 million
  332W
  to deal with winter pressures in 1998–99 and 2000–01 respectively; £149,000 for heart disease services 2000–01; £57,700 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £184 million proposed capital scheme at Forest Healthcare NHS Trust.

  Redbridge local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  33.481

  —

  —

  2001–02

  45.514

  20.4

  35.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Redbridge local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2001–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,782

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,270

  1,082

  1,472

  Prevention grant2

  —

  98

  146

  Carers grant3

  —

  97

  244

  343

  Children's grant3

  —

  376

  593

  1,434

  MH Core grant

  263

  444

  580

  4582

  Training Support Grant

  162

  160

  155

  4158

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocations

  Waltham Forest local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  46.853

  —

  —

  2001–02

  56.900

  7.6

  21.4

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Waltham Forest local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,056

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,480

  1,246

  1,623

  Prevention grant2

  —

  112

  166

  Carers grant3

  —

  110

  304

  422

  Children's grant3

  —

  670

  1,056

  2,561

  MH Core grant

  446

  660

  822

  4824

  Training Support Grant

  204

  205

  200

  4194

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Hull, North constituency, the effects on Hull, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150619]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01". A copy of the most recent report is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by East Riding and Hull health authority and East Riding of Yorkshire social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for East Riding and Hull health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  113.3

  £ million (real terms)

  72.6

  Percentage (cash)

  38.73

  Percentage (real terms)

  22.92

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  East Riding and Hull health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.06 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £114,000, £225,000, £338,000 and £127,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £333,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01; £5.48 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £666,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01 and £1.6 million, £2.06 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively; £1.08 million for heart disease services in 2000–01; £445,000 invested into dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £26 million major hospital development being developed at Hull Royal infirmary and the new £39 million major hospital development being developed at Castle Hill Hospital.

  East Riding of Yorkshire local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.
  334W

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  32.644

  —

  —

  2001–02

  44.039

  19.5

  34.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, East Riding of Yorkshire local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1.940

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1.368

  1.173

  1.660

  Prevention grant2

  —

  111

  168

  Carers grant3

  —

  113

  257

  362

  Children's grant3

  —

  216

  344

  863

  MH Core grant

  241

  407

  470

  4548

  Training Support Grant

  192

  189

  193

  4233

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Houghton and Washington, East)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Houghton and Washington, East of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [152991]

  Mr. Hutton
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Sunderland health authority and Sunderland social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Sunderland HA are set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  64.1

  £ million (real terms)

  41.4

  Percentage (cash)

  39.37

  Percentage (real terms)

  23.49

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Sunderland health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £600,000 for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £64,000, £131,000, £202,000 and £139,000 for improving

  335W
  cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £580,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01; £1.8 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £392,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01 and £880,000. £1.05 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively; and £119,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £22 million major hospital development that has opened at Sunderland Royal Hospital.

  Sunderland personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  46.016

  —

  —

  2001–02

  61.499

  18.4

  32.0

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Sunderland local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1.940

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1.368

  1.173

  1.660

  Prevention grant2

  —

  111

  168

  Carers grant3

  —

  113

  257

  362

  Children's grant3

  —

  216

  344

  863

  MH Core grant

  361

  582

  661

  4994

  Training Support Grant

  192

  189

  193

  4233

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Kensington and Chelsea and Cities of London and Westminster constituencies the effects of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [152273]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (Hemsworth)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly to the locations as possible, the effects of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997 on(a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) Wakefield district. [153001]

  Mr. Hutton
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government 336W
  Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Wakefield health authority and Wakefield social services authority.

  Increase in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Wakefield health authority are set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  64.8

  £ million (real terms)

  40.9

  Percentage (cash)

  37.09

  Percentage (real terms)

  21.47

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Wakefield health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £815,000 for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £97,000, £171,000, £201,000 and £134,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £824,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–1; £193,000 to expand critical care services in 2000–01 and £1.7 million to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01 and £1.7 million, 1.06 million in 1998–98 and 1998–99 respectively; £138,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01; and £20,000 invested into dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £164 million major hospital development that is being developed at Pinderfields General Hospital and Pontefract General Infirmary.

  Wakefield personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  43.218

  —

  —

  2001–02

  58.450

  19.8

  35.2

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Wakefield local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000s

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special transitional grant 1

  1,940

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,368

  1,173

  1,660

  Prevention grant2

  —

  111

  168

  Carers grant3

  —

  113

  257

  362

  Children's grant3

  —

  216

  344

  863

  MH Core grant

  332

  561

  689

  4813

  Training support grant

  192

  189

  193

  4233

  337W

  1The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency of his Department's policies and action since 2 May 1997. [153282]

  Mr. Hutton
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Tees health authority and Redcar and Cleveland social services authority and Middlesbrough social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2000–01 for Tees health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2000–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  119.8

  £ million (real terms)

  77.9

  Percentage (cash)

  40.12

  Percentage (real terms)

  24.15

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Tees health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000/01; £83,000, £172,000, £237,000 and £159,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £1.06 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000/01; £1.4 million to expand critical care services in 2000/01; £873,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01 and £1.5 million, £2.1 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively; £648,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01; and £27,000 invested into dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £149 million major hospital development that is being developed at South Cleveland Hospital.

  Redcar and Cleveland personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.
  338W

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  19.817

  —

  —

  2001–02

  25.398

  13.5

  28.2

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Redcar and Cleveland local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £00

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2001–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1.940

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1.368

  1.173

  1.660

  Prevention grant2

  —

  111

  168

  Carers grant3

  —

  113

  257

  362

  Children's grant3

  —

  216

  344

  863

  MH Core grant

  140

  237

  273

  4434

  Training Support Grant

  192

  189

  193

  4233

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Middlesbrough local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  22.672

  —

  —

  2001–02

  29.825

  16.5

  31.5

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Middlesbrough local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,023

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  771

  668

  903

  Prevention grant2

  —

  60

  91

  Carers grant3

  —

  59

  161

  225

  Children's grant3

  —

  313

  495

  1.190

  MH Core grant

  149

  251

  290

  4571

  Training Support Grant

  177

  192

  210

  4204

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153085]

  Mr. Hutton
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government
  339W
  Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My right hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority, Gateshead social services authority and South Tyneside social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2000–01 for Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  79.7

  £ million (real terms)

  50.9

  Percentage (cash)

  38.21

  Percentage (real terms)

  22.46

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.3 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £83,000, £172,000, £237,000 and £159,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £902,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01; £734,000 to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £497,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01 and £1.1 million, £1.35 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively; and £133,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01.

  Gateshead local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  1996–97

  2001–02

  £ million

  32.309

  42.639

  Percentage increase (real)

  —

  16.9

  Percentage increase (cash)

  —

  31.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Gateshead local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,720

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,257

  1,060

  1,440

  Prevention grant2

  —

  96

  141

  Carers grant3

  —

  96

  233

  322

  Children's grant3

  —

  298

  469

  1,227

  MH Core grant

  327

  446

  469

  4548

  Training Support Grant

  212

  235

  262

  4273

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  340W
  South Tyneside local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  1996–97

  2001–02

  £ million

  25.912

  36.293

  Percentage increase (real)

  —

  24.0

  Percentage increase (cash)

  —

  40.1

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, South Tyneside local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,384

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,014

  868

  1,193

  Prevention grant2

  —

  77

  116

  Carers grant3

  —

  78

  198

  274

  Children's grant3

  —

  275

  435

  1,131

  MH Core grant

  182

  252

  355

  4556

  Training Support Grant

  190

  189

  186

  4162

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information, relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Jarrow of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153543]

  Mr. Hutton
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01". A copy of the most recent report is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority, Gateshead social services authority and South Tyneside social services authority.

  Increase in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  79.7

  £ million (real terms)

  50.9

  Percentage (cash)

  38.21

  Percentage (real terms)

  22.46

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.
  341W
  Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.3 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £83,000, £172,000, £237,000 and £159,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £902,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01; £734,000 to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £497,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01 and £1.1 million, £1.35 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively: and £133,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01.

  Gateshead local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  32.309

  —

  —

  2001–02

  42.639

  16.9

  31.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Gateshead local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,720

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,257

  1,060

  1,440

  Prevention grant2

  —

  96

  141

  Carers grant3

  —

  96

  233

  322

  Children's grant3

  —

  298

  469

  1,227

  MH Core Grant

  327

  446

  469

  4747

  Training Support Grant

  212

  235

  262

  4273

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  South Tyneside local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  25.912

  —

  —

  2001–02

  36.293

  24.0

  40.1

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, South Tyneside local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  1,384

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,014

  868

  1,193

  Prevention grant2

  —

  77

  116

  Carers grant3

  —

  78

  198

  274

  Children's grant3

  —

  275

  435

  1,131

  MH Core grant

  182

  252

  355

  4556

  Training Support Grant

  190

  189

  186

  4162

  342W
  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Walthamstow constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154177]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000/01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority and Redbridge and Waltham Forest social services authorities.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  86.3

  £ million (real terms)

  52.1

  Percentage (cash)

  34.55

  Percentage (real terms)

  19.22

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority and the National Health Service trusts within it have also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.8 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £96,000, £192,000, £292,000 and £185,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–00 and 2000–01 respectively; Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority has also received: £55,000 for the investment of cancer equipment which has already been delivered and is now in use; £3.2 million, £355,000 and £334,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £1.8 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £3.3 million and £1.6 million to deal with winter pressures in 1998–99 and 2000–01 respectively £149,000 for heart disease services 2000–01; and £57,700 invested into dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new the £184 million proposed capital scheme at Forest Healthcare NHS Trust.
  343W

  Redbridge local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97

  1996–97

  2001–02

  £ million

  33.481

  45.514

  Percentage increase (real)

  —

  20.4

  Percentage increase (cash)

  —

  35.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Redbridge local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  The special Transitional grant1

  1,782

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,270

  1,082

  1,472

  Prevention grant2

  —

  98

  146

  Carers grant3

  —

  97

  244

  343

  Children's grant3

  —

  376

  593

  1,434

  Mental Health Core grant

  263

  444

  580

  5824

  Training Support Grant

  162

  160

  155

  1584

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocations

  Waltham Forest local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  46.853

  —

  —

  2001–02

  56.900

  7.6

  21.4

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Waltham Forest local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,056

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,480

  1,246

  1,623

  Prevention grant2

  —

  112

  166

  Carers grant3

  —

  110

  304

  422

  Children's grant3

  —

  670

  1,056

  2,561

  Mental Health Core grant

  446

  660

  822

  8244

  Training Support Grant

  204

  205

  200

  1944

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Sutton and Cheam)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Sutton and Cheam constituency, the effects on Sutton and Cheam of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154415]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 March 2001]: Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure
  344W
  Plans 2000–01" is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  The hon. Member's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority and Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Social Services Authorities.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  125.8

  £ million (real terms)

  77.5

  Percentage (cash)

  35.61

  Percentage (real terms)

  20.15

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority and the National Health Service Trust within it has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £6.6 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £138,000, £313,000, £408,000 and £266,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA has also received £300,000 for the investment of cancer equipment which has already been delivered and is now in use; £4.5 million, £453,000 and £406,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 1998–99, 1995–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £2.25 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £3.3 million and £2.9 million to deal with winter pressures in 1998–99 and 2000–01; £228,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01; and £35,000 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, the hon. Member's constituents will benefit from the new £48 million major hospital development that is being developed at St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust and £24 million development at Queen Mary's Roehampton.

  Merton local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  26.736

  —

  —

  2001–02

  35.052

  16.1

  31.1

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Merton local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.
  345W

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  The special Transitional grant1

  1,304

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  958

  797

  1,064

  Prevention grant2

  —

  78

  115

  Carers grant3

  —

  76

  196

  275

  Children's grant3

  —

  324

  512

  1,300

  Mental Health Core grant

  388

  524

  798

  4799

  Training Support Grant

  153

  152

  145

  4148

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Sutton local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  23.901

  —

  —

  2001–02

  31.174

  15.5

  30.4

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Sutton local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  The Special Transitional Grant1

  1,253

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  882

  735

  1,015

  Prevention grant2

  —

  73

  107

  Carers grant3

  —

  71

  176

  249

  Children's grant3

  —

  250

  392

  983

  Mental Health Core grant

  242

  311

  407

  4408

  Training Support Grant

  140

  158

  174

  4136

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Wandsworth local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  63.679

  —

  —

  2001–02

  74.746

  4.0

  17.4

  In addition to the SSAs referred to Wandsworth local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,634

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,943

  1,623

  2,117

  Prevention grant2

  —

  158

  233

  Carers grant3

  —

  153

  417

  579

  Children's grant3

  —

  866

  1,374

  3,370

  Mental Health Core grant

  573

  881

  1,115

  41,118

  Training Support Grant

  215

  238

  300

  4252

  346W
  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Norwich, North)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Norwich, North constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [151145]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Norfolk health authority and Norfolk social services authority.

  Norfolk health authority was formed on 1 April 1999 from the merger of East Norfolk health authority and part of North West Anglia health authority. It is not possible to compare pre-merger and post-merger allocations.

  Norfolk health authority has received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.3 million for accident and emergency modernisation (capital) in 2000–01; £199,000, £390,000, £477,000 and £286,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £986,000 has also been provided for investment in cancer equipment which has been delivered and is in use; £929,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01; £2.2 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £1.1 million to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01; £195,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01; and £60,000 invested in dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £158 million major hospital development that is being developed at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital National Health Service trust.

  Norfolk local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  97.014

  —

  —

  2001–02

  126.380

  15.4

  30.3

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Norfolk local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.
  347W

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  5,273

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  3,791

  3,292

  4,671

  Prevention grant2

  —

  313

  474

  Carers grant3

  —

  324

  752

  1,053

  Children's grant3

  —

  723

  1,149

  2,924

  MH Core grant

  730

  1,208

  1,395

  41,758

  Training Support Grant

  426

  511

  604

  4506

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Luton, South)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Luton, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156161]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Bedfordshire health authority and Luton unitary social services authority.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Bedfordshire health authority is set out in the table.

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  103.6

  £ million (real terms)

  68.3

  Percentage (cash)

  41.49

  Percentage (real terms)

  25.36

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Bedfordshire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £1.4 million for accident and emergency modernisation (capital) in 2000–01; £101,000, £201,000, £304,000 and £203,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £644,000 to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01; £1.4 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £887,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01; £168,000 for heart disease services 2000–01; £50,000 invested to dentistry in 2000–01.
  348W
  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £14.7 million major development to include elderly care, physiotherapy and outpatients, as well as staff accommodation that is being developed at the Luton and Dunstable hospital.

  Bedfordshire local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  61.927

  —

  —

  2001–02

  52.107

  -25.5

  -15.9

  Note:

  The SSA has decreased because of boundary changes resulting from local government reorganisation.

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Bedfordshire local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,056

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,485

  1,289

  1,803

  Prevention grant2

  —

  120

  182

  Carers grant3

  —

  120

  291

  416

  Children's grant3

  —

  357

  560

  1,431

  Mental Health Core grant

  316

  534

  611

  4684

  Training Support Grant

  289

  269

  218

  4207

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Luton local authority came into existence on 1 April 1997. Its personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 is £30.922 million.

  In addition to its SSA, Luton has received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  The special Transitional Grant1

  1,001

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  765

  658

  888

  Prevention grant2

  —

  63

  95

  Carers grant3

  —

  61

  171

  241

  Children's grant3

  —

  359

  561

  1,357

  Mental Health Core grant

  156

  300

  304

  4486

  Training Support Grant

  157

  165

  181

  4167

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Southwark)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the London borough of Southwark, the effects on the London borough of Southwark of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155974]
  349W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department a of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My right hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority and Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority are shown in the table.

  Increase in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  186.4

  £ million (real terms)

  119.8

  Percentage (cash)

  39

  Percentage (real terms)

  23.16

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority and the National Health Service trusts within it have also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £832,000 for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £235,000, £510,000, £553,000 and £366,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA has also received £1.89 million for the investment of cancer equipment which has already been delivered and is now in use; £6.2 million, £1.2 million and £1.3 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £3.3 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £5.3 million and £1.8 million to deal with winter pressures in 1998–99 and 2000–01 respectively; £813,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01 respectively; and £136,700 invested to dentistry in 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £100 million reconfiguration of services at Guys and St. Thomas' Hospitals NHS Trust which is currently under construction, £75 million capital scheme at Kings and £44 million proposed development at Lewisham hospital.

  Lambeth local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.
  350W

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  84.841

  —

  —

  2001–02

  92.374

  -3.6

  8.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Lambeth local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,477

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,974

  1,670

  2,160

  Prevention grant2

  —

  165

  247

  Carers grant3

  —

  157

  509

  714

  Children's grant3

  —

  1,574

  2,525

  6,034

  MH Core grant

  797

  1,129

  1,381

  41,383

  Training Support Grant

  248

  178

  177

  4248

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Southwark local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  70.242

  —

  —

  2001–02

  87.510

  10.3

  24.6

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Southwark local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,443

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,913

  1,619

  2,116

  Prevention grant2

  —

  154

  229

  Carers grant3

  —

  148

  472

  665

  Children's grant3

  —

  1,269

  2,025

  5,095

  MH Core grant

  794

  1,082

  1,308

  41,311

  Training Support Grant

  223

  255

  308

  4325

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Lewisham local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  65.456

  —

  —

  2001–02

  75.867

  2.6

  15.9

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Lewisham local authority received additional funding in the form of a

  351W
  number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,465

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,819

  1,516

  1,971

  Prevention grant2

  —

  142

  210

  Carers grant3

  —

  139

  416

  576

  Children's grant3

  —

  1,111

  1,768

  4,216

  MH Core grant

  649

  914

  1,266

  41,268

  Training Support Grant

  187

  244

  228

  4218

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Grants (London Boroughs)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) each category of grant and (b) the amount of each grant paid by his Department to each London borough in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–1999, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02. [155429]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  HCHS: Non-medical and medical and dental staff and those employed in the community and public health areas of work in Shropshire HA area as at 30 September 1997 and 2000

  Whole-time equivalents

  Headcount

  1997

  2000

  1997

  2000

  Total non-medical staff

  5,020

  5,620

  6,230

  7,060

  Of which

  Nursing staff community psychiatry1

  60

  80

  60

  80

  Community learning difficulties1

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Community services1

  300

  340

  390

  490

  Total medical and dental public health medicine (PHM) and community health service (CHS) staff

  20

  30

  40

  40

  Of which

  PHM

  2—

  10

  10

  10

  CHS

  20

  20

  30

  30

  1 These are the only non-medical workforce staff groups that can be identified as working within community health

  2 Five or less and greater than zero

  Notes:

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health 2000 non-medical workforce census

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental workforce census

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms will be put in place to enable GP practices to demonstrate their competence to primary care trusts. [156734]

  Mr. Denham
  Primary care trust (PCT) core functions include the development of general practice and other primary care providers and those professionals working in primary and community care. The range of services developed will vary between PCTs. It is therefore for each PCT to develop its own incentive arrangements and a range of performance indicators to assess the development of practices and the services it provides.
  352W
  The tables list the amount and type of grant paid to each London borough from 1997–98 to 2000–01 with indicative allocations for 2001–02. In addition to the grants shown in the tables:
  each council will receive £16,666 from the Improving Information Management grant being introduced in 2001–02
  from the Invest to Save grant, Croydon council was paid £36,900 in 2000–01 and will receive £50,000 in 2001–02; Harrow council was paid £459,000 in 2000–01 and will received £410,000 in 2001–02
  Hammersmith and Fulham council received secure accommodation grants of £5.601,163 in 1997–98, £1,554,664 in 1998–99, £88,458 in 1999–2000 and £68,914 in 2000–01. Southwark council received £813,916 in 1997–98 and £420,533 in 1998–99.

  Community Health Workers
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community health workers worked in Shropshire(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [156565]

  Yvette Cooper
  Data relating solely to community health workers are not collected centrally. The table illustrates the number of staff employed in hospitals and community health services (HCHS) in the Shropshire health authority (HA).

  The National Health Service Plan sets out future plans for further expansion of NHS staff.

  As part of this the Prime Minister announced on 19 March an additional £100 million to invest in general practice and primary care. PCTs and primary care groups will need to agree objectives and targets with their constituent practices for the effective use of these funds that support improvement of services by skilled and competent primary care professionals.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many isolation wards for the treatment of tuberculosis have been opened in NHS hospitals since May 1997; in which hospitals; and on what dates. [156535]
  353W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Information on the number of isolation wards in hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Different levels of isolation are required depending on the infectious (or suspected infectious) nature of a tuberculosis case. Each patient is considered on a case-by-case basis and therefore, the need for isolation facilities is made at local level.

  The Department has published recommendations on isolation in two documents. One in June 1996 "Recommendations for the prevention and control of tuberculosis at local level" and again in September 1998 in the document entitled "UK guidance on the prevention and control of transmission of HIV-related tuberculosis and Drug-resistant, including Multiple Drug-resistant tuberculosis".

  HPV Testing
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the pilot tests for HPV testing(a) have started on schedule and (b) are taking place in the of originally announced locations; and when he expects the results to be published. [156745]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: The human papilloma virus/liquid based cytology pilot started in March 2001, as planned. As previously announced, the three sites are Norfolk and Norwich North Bristol and Newcastle.

  The evaluation is in two phases. In May 2002 the United Kingdom national screening committee (NSC) will report to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on liquid based cytology. In March 2003, the NSC will consider the full evaluation of human papilloma virus testing and liquid based cytology in cervical screening before reporting to Ministers. Decisions about publication will be made at that stage.

  Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to meet the European Standards in Cancer survival rates. [156746]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: The National Health Service cancer plan has set out the actions and milestones that aim to deliver the fastest improvements in cancer services anywhere in Europe over the next five years. By 2010 we anticipate that our five year survival rates for cancer will compare with the best in Europe.

  NHS Plan
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the term "by 2006" used in the NHS Plan refers to 1 January 2006. [157087]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no references to the term "by 2006" in the National Health Service Plan.

  Drug and Tobacco Dependency
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary State for Health how much central Government funding was specifically 354W
  allocated for preventive and curative work in relation to (a) drug, (b) alcohol and (c) tobacco dependency in the last financial year. [156909]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: It is not always possible to distinguish between preventive and curative work in relation to substance misuse. Interventions may be undertaken with people who have some substance misuse problems but have not, or would not, necessarily develop dependency. In the financial year 2000–01, the following sums were allocated for work which can broadly be described as preventive and/or curative in relation to drug, alcohol, and tobacco dependency or misuse, by central Government:
  £59 million drug misuse special allocation to health authorities for drug misuse services.
  £25 million additional in year funding in relation to drug misuse, to increase treatment capacity, reduce drug related deaths, and extend targeted preventive programmes.
  £20 million allocated for smoking cessation through health authorities.
  £13.75 million allocated for anti-smoking education.
  £6.78 million drug and alcohol specific and special grants allocated to local authorities for distribution to voluntary sector drug and alcohol treatment agencies.
  £7.45 million for preventive activity in relation to drug misuse.
  £1.86 million Section 64 General Scheme of Grants to the voluntary sector, covering a range of preventive and curative projects in relation to drug, alcohol, and tobacco dependency.
  £0.6 million for preventive health promotion in relation to alcohol.
  £0.5 million local grants scheme promoting development of primary care led alcohol services.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) types of crime committed by prisoners released on the Home Detention Curfew Scheme while they are on the scheme which are not reported to the police; and if he will make a statement. [152694]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: No data are collected on the number or type of offences which might be committed by prisoners released on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) but which are not reported by victims to the police. The British Crime Survey which measures crime against households and individuals—including incidents not reported to the police—shows that overall levels of crime in 1999, the year following introduction of the HDC scheme, were 10 per cent. lower than in 1997.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what major advertising campaigns his Department is carrying out; and what the cost and duration of each is. [154266]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: My Department is not currently running any advertising campaigns.
  355W
  The second phase of the vehicle crime reduction campaign finished on 31 March. The cost for this phase of the campaign was £4.4 million. The total cost for this campaign during 2000–01 is £8.67 million as outlined in a previous answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 12 February 2001, Official Report, column 63W.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155357]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision in the application for leave to remain made by Mrs. Farmer of Babbacombe Road, Torquay (Ref. D 2599777). [156518]

  Mrs. Roche
  A decision has now been taken on Mrs. Farmer's application and notification of the decision has been sent to Mrs. Farmer's solicitors. I have arranged for a copy of the notification to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which Government Departments pay to access information on the national change of address database; [156453]

  (2) what the cost to public funds of accessing the national change of address database was in each year since 1995. [156455]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is a matter for individual Departments to provide the information requested. There are no central records kept in the Home Office of these costs and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have lodged complaints with the Data Protection Registrar concerning information from the change of address database sold by the Post Office to third parties; [156456]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to require the Data Protection Registrar to obtain the consent of an individual before information from the change of address database is sold on to third parties. [156454]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Data Protection Registrar has been known since 30 January 2001 as the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner administers and enforces the Data Protection Act 1998 independently of the Government.

  I have drawn the Commissioner's attention to these questions and I understand that she will be writing to my hon. Friend.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifications there were to his Department in each year from 1997 to date of criminal convictions of asylum seekers resident in the United Kingdom. [157168]

  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. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he has made for education materials to be made available in appropriate languages for asylum seekers held at Winchester prison. [157012]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Provision for education materials in appropriate languages is made available to detainees as and when the need arises. On arrival each detainee is offered an education induction involving an assessment and interview to find out what his needs are. The education department provides dictionaries, "English as a second language" packs, basic readers and cassettes and has recently employed an "English as a second language" teacher. The education department also provides detainees with information and advice about education and employment opportunities available on release.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are recipients of voucher-only support; and if he will make a statement. [157173]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of February 2001,111,630 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated voucher-only support by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
  1 Figure rounded to the nearest ten

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 February 2001,Official Report, columns 294–96, on young offenders institutions, what further consideration he has given to the availability of sanctions to deal with disorder and bullying by young persons in custody; and if he will make a statement. [157036]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) are working on a joint rewards and sanctions strategy. This emphasises the increased use of incentives which can encourage positive behaviour and be withdrawn when negative behaviour is displayed. The aim is to create a more direct link between individual target setting and compliance with institutional rules, which can in turn influence decisions regarding early and late release under the Detention and Training Order. Guidance will be issued to Governors and practitioners by July.

  Appointments Committee
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the members of the Appointments Committee advising him on the selection of HM Chief Inspector of Probation and their current occupations; [157002]

  (2) if he will list the members of the Appointments Committee advising him on the selection of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and their current occupations. [157003]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: The members of the Advisory Panel are Baroness Stern, former Director of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and Senior Research Fellow at the International Centre for Prison Studies; Lord Laming, former Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate and author of the Laming Report on Modernising the Management of the Prison Service; Sir Hayden Phillips, Permanent Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department and chair of the Panel, and Sue Street, Director of the Home Office's Criminal Policy Group.

  In appointing Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, the guidelines of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments are being followed.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations the Government have carried out with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland authorities about the possible introduction of a national identity card; [157386]

  (2) what his policy is towards the introduction of a national identity card. [157347]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We believe that, at least for the time being, the costs and risks associated with the introduction of a national identity card would outweigh the benefits. During the assessment of the options there was consultation at official level with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland authorities; but we have not specifically sought the views of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to extend the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to include technical details of animal experiments; and if he will make a statement. [157423]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Technical details of animal experiments are likely to be covered by the prohibition on disclosure set out in section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We will not provide public information which will compromise the personal security of scientists and researchers who have concerns about violent animal extremists. The current extremist activity makes it difficult to move on Freedom of Information.

  Closed Circuit Television Initiative
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received for the 358W
  crime reduction programme closed circuit television initiative round 2; how many have been invited to bid for the final stage; and how many successful bids can be accommodated within the budget provision. [157383]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under round 2 of the crime reduction programme's closed circuit television initiative over 800 initial funding applications worth more than £200 million were received from crime and disorder reduction partnerships. On 26 March, 339 schemes with a potential award total of around £108 million were shortlisted as suitable for further development. Within the budget provision there is scope for all of the shortlisted bids to be funded providing that proposals meet the necessary criteria as outlined in the initiative's prospectus.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by county, those applicants who have been invited to the final bid stage of the closed circuit television initiative round 2. [157379]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under round 2 of the crime reduction programme's closed circuit television initiative, 339 schemes with a potential award total of around £108 million were shortlisted as suitable for further development. A list, by county, of those applicants that have been invited to the final stage of the initiative has been placed in the Library.

  Firearms (Police)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of the January 2001 Association of Chief Police Officers manual of guidance on the police use of firearms, in the Library. [157319]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A copy of this document in the version which is available to the public was placed in the Library on 20 February. Certain tactical and training information contained in the full manual must remain confidential because of its potential value to armed criminals.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to strengthen the powers of the police and local authorities to deal with illegally abandoned cars. [157257]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Local Government Association has set up a working group, in partnership with the police and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to look at the related problems of vehicle theft, vehicle excise duty evasion and abandoned vehicles. The Government will consider carefully any recommendations arising from the work of this group, including any proposals for additional powers to enable the police and local authorities deal more effectively with abandoned vehicles.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles removed by(a) the police and (b) local authorities have been declared a hazard in the past five years. [157389]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not collected or held centrally.
  359W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicle-keepers have been prosecuted for illegally abandoning their vehicles in the past five years. [157388]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Abandoning a motor vehicle is an offence under section 2 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, but information contained in the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database does not distinguish between motor vehicles, anything which formed part of a motor vehicle or anything other than a motor vehicle being abandoned. Nor does it distinguish vehicle keepers from other persons.

  Persons proceeded against for all offences under section 2 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 in England and Wales are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1994

  88

  1995

  98

  1996

  77

  1997

  78

  1998

  71

  1999

  108

  Figures for 2000 are not yet available.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost to public funds of exempting volunteers from fees for criminal record checks. [157348]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It remains our intention that the Criminal Records Bureau will be self-financing by means of the charges that it makes for the disclosures that it issues.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that information held by the Criminal Records Bureau is as accurate as possible before checks become available to employers; and if he will make a statement. [157171]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) will rely on a number of data sources, according to the nature of the case. The CRB has been liaising with all those responsible for the data sources in question. We fully recognise, and entirely share, concerns that have been expressed about delays in inputting data on to the Police National Computer, and errors and omissions in some of the data. Indeed, these were highlighted by reports commissioned by the Government. We have been working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), the Information Commissioner and other concerned parties to tackle these problems. Police forces are now working to a compliance strategy that has been drawn up by ACPO. This sets quantified performance indicators for key aspects of both quality and timeliness, including the prompt inputting of data both in the initial stages of a case and following the conclusion of trial proceedings. There are also agreed programmes to 360W
  tackle backlogs. Performance data for all forces are being routinely collected by PITO, and HMIC will be auditing performance. HMIC will be disseminating to all forces, through conferences and other means, information on good practice in relation to business processes in order to eradicate avoidable delays. Work is also being undertaken to produce revised protocols for weeding out old records, and the development by PITO of programs for the automated implementation of these protocols will be given priority.

  Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigation there has been of the aircraft accident involving the Chief Commisisoner of the Metropolitan Police by(a) the Air Accident Investigation Branch and (b) the Police; and if he will make a statement. [157362]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that the circumstances surrounding the emergency landing made by an aircraft piloted by Sir John Stevens at Newcastle-upon-Tyne airport on 3 February have been investigated by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the Department of Trade and Industry. The results of the AAIB investigation will be published in the AAIB monthly bulletin. There has been no investigation of the incident by Northumbria Police.

  Firearms Compensation Payments
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions his Department has accepted liability for interest on late firearms compensation payments. [157262]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Road Traffic Penalties Consultation
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses he has received to the Road Traffic Penalties consultation paper; and when he will report on these to the House. [157416]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received approximately 1,100 responses to the consultation paper on Road Traffic Penalties. Some individuals have responded more than once, for example by e-mail, fax, letter or through their Member of Parliament. This duplication will be taken into account in the final collation of responses and the final number of respondents will be correspondingly lower. We hope to publish a report on the responses in the summer.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent investigations he has carried out into the activities at Huntingdon Life Sciences; and if he will make a statement. [157422]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A number of police forces in the Eastern Region are pooling resources and working together on investigations relating to attacks by animal extremists. This joint working includes investigating personal attacks on directors and shareholders of Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) and other research centres; a shared approach to preparations for national days of action at the HLS site and other sites in the
  361W
  affected force areas; investigating the organisers and other key individuals in the many cross-border demonstrations which take place; and linking evidence where necessary.

  The Government are absolutely determined to tackle the sort of criminal behaviour perpetrated by animal rights extremists, many of whom do not hesitate to use violence and intimidation to achieve their aims. Both the Government and the police are determined to ensure that people should be allowed to go about their legitimate business without being subject to violence and intimidation. We are introducing a range of measures aimed at combating such intimidation, including important new provisions in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill currently before Parliament.

  Prison Service
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Prison Service establishments are over their certified normal accommodation levels; and if he will make a statement. [157170]

  Mr. Boateng
  At the end of February 2001, there were 53 establishments in which the population exceeded in use certified normal accommodation. The prisons concerned are listed in the table.

  Prison name

  In use CNA

  Population

  Altcourse

  614

  799

  Aylesbury

  348

  353

  Bedford

  352

  368

  Belmarsh

  843

  850

  Birmingham

  710

  925

  Blakenhurst

  647

  846

  Bristol

  314

  545

  Brixton

  651

  755

  Buckley Hall

  350

  360

  Bullingdon

  767

  836

  Canterbury

  196

  254

  Cardiff

  403

  544

  Cookham Wood

  120

  147

  Doncaster

  771

  1,091

  Dorchester

  172

  219

  Downview

  322

  330

  Durham

  670

  703

  Eastwood Park

  295

  302

  Elmley

  763

  864

  Everthorpe

  438

  456

  Exeter

  315

  385

  Glen Parva

  664

  712

  Gloucester

  236

  277

  Guys Marsh

  487

  509

  362W

  Prison name

  In use CNA

  Population

  High Down

  649

  702

  Holloway

  477

  488

  Leeds

  770

  1,236

  Leicester

  219

  358

  Lincoln

  360

  491

  Littlehey

  624

  626

  Liverpool

  1,216

  1,228

  Low Newton

  215

  234

  Manchester

  953

  1,076

  Moorland

  740

  764

  Mount

  705

  732

  New Hall

  327

  365

  Northallerton

  135

  197

  Norwich

  561

  669

  Parc

  844

  929

  Pentonville

  897

  1,098

  Preston

  301

  556

  Ranby

  725

  741

  Shepton Mallet

  99

  110

  Shrewsbury

  185

  319

  Stocken

  556

  573

  Styal

  412

  428

  Usk

  251

  321

  Verne

  552

  562

  Wandsworth

  1,128

  1,302

  Wayland

  620

  625

  Winchester

  455

  564

  Wolds

  360

  378

  Wormwood Scrubs

  812

  856

  Elections Bill
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department since when Parliamentary draftsmen have been working on the Elections Bill. [157146]

  Mr. Straw
  Instructions were issued by officials on Sunday 1 April.

  Welsh Assembly (Concordat)
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the bilateral concordat between his Department and the National Assembly for Wales. [157795]

  Mr. Straw
  A bilateral concordat has been agreed between the Home Office and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales and a copy has been placed in the Library. The concordat sets out working arrangements for consultation, exchange of information, finance, access to services, resolution of disputes and review of relations between the two organisations.