Sitting of 26 April 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL. (By ORDER)
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered on Wednesday 2 May.

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

  Playgroups (South Swindon)
  Ms Julia Drown: What Government financial support was given to playgroups in South Swindon in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 2001–02. [157907]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): This year, generous financial support is being given to playgroups in Swindon, including £770,000 for direct grant for three-year-olds, funding for four-year-olds through the standard spending assessment, £415,000 in child care grant, £1.5 million over three years for the neighbourhood nursery initiatives and moneys from the new opportunities fund. Swindon playgroups can also access specific national funds for capital investment and sustainability to expand services to provide full day care and to support pre-schools in difficulties.
  In 1996–97, Swindon pre-schools got nothing for free nursery places and a minute share of the miserable £9.6 million available nationally for out-of-school clubs. Unlike the Tories, we are putting our money where our mouth is, investing in the early years and supporting pre-schools.
  Ms Drown: There is no doubt that under this Government there has been tremendous extra support for nursery education and child care, including playgroups, which is in stark contrast to the virtual abandonment of the sector by the Conservative Government. Will my hon. Friend assure us of her support for playgroups? What are the Government doing to improve the status of playgroup workers, who provide valuable support to our communities but are often poorly paid and lack recognition for their worthwhile work in playgroup sessions, in preparing for those sessions and in evaluating the work that is done?
  Ms Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her long-standing commitment to the work that she has
  426
  carried out to ensure that there is a choice of high-quality child care and education places for people in South Swindon. Of course we value playgroups and we wish to raise the status of those who work in them. It is an interesting fact that child care and early years education is now the second fastest growing sector in the labour market. With our investment in that sector, the establishment of a qualifications framework and the introduction of the child care tax credit and the working families tax credit, we are enabling playgroup workers to be properly rewarded for their work.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: When the Education and Employment Committee looked at early years provision in towns such as Swindon, we heard that a problem for playgroups is the pressure placed by schools on parents to bring their children into school well before they are ready. What are the Government going to do about that?
  Ms Hodge: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the pressure on playgroups came from the previous Government's ill-advised and ill-conceived nursery voucher scheme, which led in one year to the closure of 1,100 playgroups. This Government have invested to ensure that playgroups have access to the nursery education grant for three and four-year-olds. That means that we have turned a corner, and last year there were 6,000 new places in playgroups in England.

  Truancy
  Mr. David Taylor: What plans he has to support schools in using information technology to tackle truancy. [157908]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): Last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), announced that £11 million will be available to introduce electronic registration systems into more than 500 secondary schools.
  Mr. Taylor: Information technology may well cut 10 per cent, of truancy over the next two years, but our pledge at the 1997 general election was to cut it by a third by 2002. Are we on track for that? Is not parentally condoned truancy the real problem? Should we not invest in more low-tech attendance officers to try to combat that problem? Is there not potential in this place to combat Tory truancy from Question Time? The presence of only seven Tory Back Benchers at education and employment questions is dreadful.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the way to proceed with questions on education and employment. I certainly hope that the Minister will not respond in kind.
  Mr. Wills: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend is right that parentally condoned truancy is a major problem. I have some figures that we have just received from 112 local education authorities that responded with information on the effectiveness of truancy sweeps. Half said that most children stopped during sweeps were accompanied by parents or carers. In some areas, that was the case with up

  427
  to 97 per cent. of truants, so it is obviously a big problem and we must address it. That is why we introduced truancy sweeps, which we announced last year.
  We are making considerable progress on our manifesto pledge to cut exclusions and are well on track. We have cut 20 per cent, from the highest figure, and we are now introducing measures that will make a significant impact on truancy. The best way to reduce the rate of truancy is to prevent it from happening in the first place, and that is why many of the local projects that we support through our social inclusion pupil support grant target measures to do that. We also know that the use of electronic registration can cut truancy by up to 10 per cent. [Interruption.] Hon. Members might be more interested in this if they took more interest in education policy. We know that electronic registration must be an important part of our strategy to reduce truancy.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Every week I see groups of young people of secondary school age in my constituency and I try to discover whether they are at school or not. Every week, I find that many of them are not, and sometimes they have not been there for the whole period during which they should have been attending school.
  Will Ministers consider seriously not just the option of daytime school-hours truancy sweeps, but of ensuring that we have enough people, such as detached youth workers, to engage with young people out of school hours at weekends and evenings? They could discover what motivates the kids and get them into some structure, whether through sport, an apprenticeship or work-related project, so that they can get back into the system. Could we not concentrate on such personal mentoring rather than trying to bribe young people into activity with CDs and other things?
  Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of having a rounded strategy with a number of different instruments to tackle the problem of truancy. His constituency, I believe, is benefiting from the excellence in cities initiative and he will know, precisely for the reasons that he outlined, that personal mentors are an important part of that initiative, performing the kind of function that he described. The Connexions service will also provide personal mentors for older pupils to make sure that they get the kind of support that they need to overcome the barriers that divide them from school and education and that cause many of them to truant in the first place.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a wide range of difficulties and reasons why an individual may truant? Does he agree that the role of local education authorities is crucial for children with emotional and psychological problems, who are not truanting through choice, but have problems that need to be addressed? Will he ensure that local education authorities have sufficient resources to give back-up to schools, rather than taking cash away from local education authorities and putting pressure on schools, as large secondary schools with those problems cannot cope with the vast amount of work?
  Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of investment in those resources. It is all
  428
  very well having the ideas, but unless there is money to back them up, they are meaningless, which is why we are now investing £174 million in measures to tackle exclusion and truancy. By way of contrast, that is 10 times the amount spent in the Opposition's last year in government.

  Schools Expenditure (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on expenditure on schools in Worcestershire. [157909]
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): In 2001–02, Worcestershire's education standard spending assessment increased by almost £9 million. In addition, its share of the £52 million education budget support grant will be £1.35 million. Following the recent Budget announcement, Worcestershire schools will receive almost £7.8 million as their share of the school standards grant, more than double their allocation in the previous year.
  Mr. Luff: I think that the Minister, who is an honest woman, would admit that, under this Government, Worcestershire's share of national education expenditure has fallen very sharply indeed. Is she aware that the pressures that that is creating in Worcestershire schools like Droitwich Spa high school is leading to a crisis in retention and recruitment? I therefore ask her a simple question: will she commit her party to a clear and unambiguous timetable to end that unfairness?
  Ms Morris: Where the hon. Gentleman is right is in saying that the formula that we use to distribute money from central to local government needs to be reformed. We are doing that; his Government did not. Quite honestly, had the formula been in a better state when we came to office, we would not be in difficulty now. It is interesting that the debate is now about what share of an increased budget Worcestershire schools get. Under the previous Government, the debate was about how those schools coped with their share of budget cuts.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned a school which, presumably, is in his constituency. I should like to quote the head of an infants school in Worcester, who recently wrote to her MP and said:
  "I cannot believe how much money we have! Speaking to other Primary Headteachers, I know they feel the same … We all know it will not happen overnight, however, I feel that at least we are on the road to recovery."
  That recovery is taking place after 18 years of underfunding. I am happy that the debate is now about how we split up the extra money going into Worcestershire schools. Our record is one of £1 million extra for his local authority to cut class sizes and a real-terms increase of 16 per cent. for every child in Worcestershire's schools. The position is not yet perfect but, as that infant school head said, schools are well on the way to recovery.
  Mrs. Theresa May: What Worcestershire schools need is not yet more ministerial delay and dither, but a Conservative Government committed to a national funding formula. However, I expect that Worcestershire schools were pleased to hear the Prime Minister's pledge that he would raise the level of spending in state schools to

  429
  that in independent schools. Was that spending level the same as in the public schools that the Prime Minister attended, or as in the so-called pretty standard grammar school attended by the Leader of the House of Lords?
  Ms Morris: It is excellent news that now, for the very first time, we have a Prime Minister with such aspirations for standards for our children. The hon. Lady, and schools in Worcestershire and elsewhere, should look at what the Prime Minister has delivered in the past four years: three times as much capital spending, an increase in revenue spending of £540 per pupil, and a commitment to make sure that the share of the national wealth spent on education continues to grow in the next Parliament as it has in the present Parliament. We have a record of which we can be proud. Now people know that we have kept our word—education is the Government's top priority. As schools in Worcestershire know, we will continue to deliver, as we have delivered for the past four years.
  Mrs. May: Parents and teachers in Worcestershire will be disappointed by the Minister's replies, which show how little she and the Government understand what is happening in schools in Worcestershire. On Sunday, when she was asked what the timetable was for the Prime Minister's pledge, her response was, "Well, you have to ask the Prime Minister." Is it possible that education Ministers were not aware of the pledge that he intended to give, or was it yet more prime ministerial hot air?
  The right hon. Lady spoke of the Government keeping their word. Far from it; the Prime Minister committed the Government to spending a higher proportion of national income on education than the previous Conservative Government, but they are spending less. He gave a commitment that class sizes would be smaller—tell that to the parents of the class of 94 in Norfolk. He committed himself to the most fundamental reform of the teaching profession since state education began, which has led to teachers leaving the profession in droves. Is not the reality, as schools in Worcestershire know, that on funding, secondary class sizes and teacher numbers, the Labour Government are all spin and no delivery?
  Ms Morris: That shows just how out of touch the Conservatives are with what is going on in the real world. Anyone who went round infant classes four years ago would have seen that three in 10 of those children were in classes not of 31 or 35, but often of 45. This September, whichever school one visits, whether in town or country, one will not find one five, six or seven-year-old child who is in a class of more than 30. We have delivered on class sizes. If one goes round schools, one will find 17,000 that have been invested in and improved. Schools that have needed to be rebuilt for generations have been rebuilt under this Government. On teacher numbers, there are 12,000 more teachers in post than in 1997.
  I do not believe what the hon. Lady says about the views of Worcestershire teachers when I read the comments of the infant school teacher whom I quoted earlier. She continues:
  "After years of trying to make savings each year and having to cut back on non-teaching staff, we can afford a full complement of classroom assistants at the start of the academic year."
  Forget the figures—one does not have to believe them. After four years of Labour government, the result is that we have more 11-year-olds who can read and write than
  430
  ever before in the history of the nation, and we have fewer children leaving school with no qualifications. We have made a difference. That is what parents wanted, and that is what we have delivered.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I should point out that the Minister's reply was far too long. I say to the Opposition Front Bench that the question was also too long.

  School Achievement Awards
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: What advice he is taking following his Department's errors over this year's school achievement awards and the Minister of State's letter to schools of 29 March. [157911]
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): We have fully investigated the reasons for the error, which should not have happened. As soon as I was aware that there was a problem, I acted quickly to put things right. That included informing schools, individual hon. Members and the House.
  Mr. Hawkins: This appalling error was set out in a written answer delivered this week to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). Page after page of schools throughout the country were misinformed that they had won school achievement awards or told that they should have received them when they had not done so, as a result of the complete incompetence of the Minister's Department. After her recent answers to my hon. Friend, in which she preened herself about her Government's supposed triumphs, will she now accept that she should be taking advice from the chairman of governors and the head teacher of Blackdown school in my constituency? They say that their staff are demotivated and describe her letter about this appalling mistake as insulting and incompetent. Will she apologise to the 293 schools throughout the country that were misinformed, stop wasting taxpayers' money on advertising and start doing her job?
  Ms Morris: Yes, I apologise to the 300 schools that received inaccurate information. I apologised to them in my letter and to hon. Members in a parliamentary answer. The hon. Gentleman could have spoken for longer, and turned over the pages listing the 7,000 schools that received awards that were a true recognition of their great achievements. It is a tragedy that he uses his time in the House to name publicly the school that was wrongly given the award—something that I have not done in the Chamber. It is a shame that he did not take the chance to list all the schools in his constituency and local education authority area that won awards and deserve to be recognised.
  I apologise to the 300 schools, but for the very first time, this Government have spent £60 million on giving a cash bonus to teams of teachers and classroom assistants, and to all those who work in schools, to celebrate their success. I have received a great number of letters from special, nursery, infant and secondary schools, which tell me that this is the first time that they have ever been recognised and rewarded in such a

  431
  manner. I share in their celebration; it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman did not gracefully choose to do so for a little bit of his time today.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that this was not a major tragedy, but an unfortunate glitch. I hope that she will continue with the school achievement awards and all the other innovative programmes and policies that are, within the comprehensive ideal, bringing together the ambition to achieve diversity and choice. Will she remember that such diversity and choice need not only a lot of good ideas, but the continuing resources that the Government have pledged to provide? As we approach a general election, will she pledge to the House that we will continue with that commitment of resources?
  Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right: those ideas need to be well resourced, and they will continue to be so. The school achievement award scheme was part of our strategy for reforming teachers' pay. I assure him that, just as we are the first Government to put in place a system that rewards good teachers for teaching well, we will continue to reward teams of teachers, as we have done through the school achievement award.

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: How much has been allocated to schools in the Chatham and Aylesford constituency from the new deal for schools programme. [157912]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The funding allocated between 1997–98 and 2000–01 to schools in the Chatham and Aylesford constituency from the new deal for schools programme was £10.6 million. That included allocations made to Kent and Medway local education authorities for total packages that include schools in the constituency. For the next three years, Kent has so far been allocated £56.6 million and Medway £10.6 million under the new deal for schools programme.
  Mr. Shaw: If my hon. Friend believes that that reply warrants gratitude and thanks from me, she is right. However, that is not the complete picture. The capital grant to which she referred is £1.5 million for St. Mark's school in Eccles, which has waited years for a new school. The money came from the new deal; the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party voted against it. On Monday, I attended a ground-breaking ceremony for Chatham South school, which has waited 20 years for a new school hall. However, it will get not only a new school hall, but six classrooms, a studio and—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should try for an Adjournment debate on the subject.
  Jacqui Smith: I do not ask for gratitude, but for the money to continue to contribute to raising school standards. Departmental research clearly shows that the money that we are putting in to schools has an impact not only through repairing roofs, building new schools and
  432
  replacing temporary classrooms but through giving teachers and children the environment that they need in which to learn and to continue to raise standards.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on performance-related pay for teachers. [157913]
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The new arrangements for performance-related pay for teachers are now in place. More than 80 per cent. of the assessments have been undertaken and we envisage that more than 70 per cent. of those eligible for the award will receive it. Those who receive it, together with the pay increase from 1 April, will gain an increase of £3,000 and access to a new pay scale of £4,000, which will take teachers in London who do not accept management and administrative responsibility to a salary of £31,000 or £34,000 a year.
  Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful for that reply. How many teachers in Coventry have qualified for performance-related pay? What is my right hon. Friend doing to lift morale and to reduce the amount of paperwork that teachers have to endure?
  Mr. Blunkett: I have always accepted that pay on its own is insufficient. Working conditions and investment in the staff room as well as the classroom are crucial. Just under 1,600 teachers have currently applied for performance-related pay in Coventry. I do not have the final figure for the number who have qualified, but I hope that it is equivalent to the national figure that I gave.
  In the past two terms, we have halved the amount of paperwork and Government missives. We are putting in place a £35 million electronic data collection and collation scheme, which will avoid the duplication of data and the necessity for a variety of agencies to request the same information. With the massive investment in each pupil and in buildings and technology, we are not only raising morale but, by doing so, ensuring that we raise standards for every child in every school in the country.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Liberal Democrats welcome any extra money that goes into teachers' pay packets, but how does the Secretary of State explain the £35 million that was spent on consultancy to introduce the scheme? How can he excuse the days of wasted time spent by teachers and head teachers in filling in a bureaucratic nightmare? Is not it high time to abandon performance-related pay, and look to Scotland, where the Liberal Democrats have brokered a deal for teachers that values them through the hours that they work and their conditions of service? That is what matters to teachers, not the bureaucracy that the Government have heaped upon them day after day.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: How can you fill in a bureaucratic nightmare? That's bad grammar.
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) points out the impossibility of filling in a nightmare. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) had a similar nightmare

  433
  to me and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) when he attended the National Union of Teachers conference. I presume that he lost his voice there.
  The hon. Gentleman delivered an interesting tirade. Starters in England receive higher pay than in Scotland. That position will continue in August when the increase in Scotland takes effect. Teachers in Scotland may or may not have a 35-hour week by 2006. Any party that advocates a 35-hour week in a 39-week year needs to be able to tell the electorate what resources are being diverted to pay for that policy.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said a few moments ago that the school achievement award scheme was part of performance-related pay for teachers. Will the Secretary of State consider revising the school achievement award scheme, basing it perhaps on Ofsted reports, to create a less crude measure than using only test results? Will he consider at least taking Ofsted reports into account? Now that our friend Mr. Woodhead has gone, schools might be able to take a more positive approach to Ofsted. I can say, as someone who has experienced an Ofsted report, that when one has got through it, one certainly feels in need of a reward.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is precisely why performance-related pay is rewarding good teachers well for doing precisely that in the classroom, rather than having to rely on management or administrative promotion. Yes, the achievement awards are about progress, in terms of assessed improvement against benchmark three-year programmes, and about excellence. We are very open to refining and improving any reward system, so long as it is based on improved standards.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is an important question; I say that to the Secretary of State sincerely. The future of the Ryles Park high school in my constituency is in some doubt, primarily because it is the only secondary school in Macclesfield that provides for those with learning difficulties, and that has an inevitable impact on the league tables. Does he accept that, while performance-related pay is important, responsibility is also important, and that the skills that teachers need to deal with those with learning difficulties are critical to the success of education? Will he recognise the role of those teachers, which could lead to improvements in the number of those attending that school and remove the doubt that hangs over its future?
  Mr. Blunkett: I confirm that I agree that those working with, supporting and encouraging the progress of those with learning difficulties should be rewarded, which is why the performance-related promotion is about rewarding and recognising those who take children from whatever their starting point to a point of improvement. In other words, it is as applicable to teachers working with special needs children—not only in integrated special needs but in special needs schools—and receiving the performance-related uplift, as well as those who have received the achievement and performance bonus, as to teachers elsewhere, and I commend those special needs teachers.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Secretary of State recall that the criticism of the scheme from the Liberal Democrats and others when it was launched was that only a minority of teachers would benefit? Do not the figures that he outlined demonstrate that a clear majority of teachers can benefit, now and in future? Does not that fact show that the vast majority of teachers are good teachers, and that the Government value them?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can confirm that. Although my hon. Friend was being heckled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman during that question, I must point out to the House that performance-related pay applies also at senior management team, deputy and head levels. More than 60 per cent. of head teachers and more than 50 per cent. of deputy heads have benefited from it. Putting in place the performance-related promotion for those not on administration and management grades is another leg in that process. So, yes, all teachers have the opportunity to benefit from this programme, which is why 200,000 of them applied.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Given that the performance-related pay scheme is divisive, how does it assist in recruitment or in increasing morale in the teaching profession? Is it not a gimmick, and a pointless one at that?
  Mr. Blunkett: Of course, recruitment has gone up, as illustrated in the independent statistics, by more than 12,000 since January 1998, and there are 2,400 extra supply teachers, all of whom are available in the classroom. However, I cannot see for a moment how the scheme can any longer be described as divisive. People have their normal pay increase, and the entitlement to go up the normal incremental scale. They now also have the entitlement to seek promotion on to the new scales that I described earlier, and they get the £2,000 uplift to boot, simply for being a good teacher in the classroom.
  The fact that 200,000 teachers have applied illustrates that, far from this being something for a minority, it is for the majority of teachers who, I repeat—despite the president of the National Union of Teachers telling me off for saying so—are good teachers. We value them for being good teachers and we thank them for it.

  Sure Start (Romsey)
  Sandra Gidley: If he will make a statement on sure start provision in the Romsey constituency. [157914]
  The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): Currently there are no sure start programmes in the Romsey constituency, but 260 have been announced. Districts are chosen on the basis of levels of deprivation. The district of Southampton has two sure start programmes, although the catchment areas for both programmes are outside the Romsey constituency.
  Sandra Gidley: It is true that Southampton was encouraged to make an application for sure start. The city council wanted to include the Flower estate, which is part of Bassett ward in my constituency, but unfortunately the estate forms only a third of a very large ward which is otherwise regarded as affluent. Will the Minister

  435
  undertake to ensure that isolated pockets of deprivation, which all agencies agree need help, will be able to receive money in future, and that we do not rely solely on arbitrary ward boundaries?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady has raised an important issue about how best to target small areas of deprivation. So far 260 sure start programmes have been targeted in that way, but we are committed to introducing 500 by 2004. Many other areas will have programmes over the next few years.
  We have made clear our intention to look at different models when we are developing the new programmes, and to focus on smaller pockets of deprivation that the current targeting method might not pick up. Every child living in poverty deserves the best possible start in life, wherever he or she lives.

  New Deal for Young People
  Mr. Nigel Beard: What assessment he has made of the involvement of different sectors of the economy in the new deal for young people. [157915]
  The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The new deal has helped to cut long-term unemployment among young people by nearly 80 per cent. over the past four years. It is now the lowest for a generation, and a strong and stable economy has enabled businesses to create well over 1 million new jobs
  The intensified training provided by the new deal is designed according to the demands of employers. New dealers will increasingly move into sectors where skill shortages have been a problem for businesses seeking to grow. For example, we are working with leading information technology companies through Ambition IT, which will enable 5,000 more unemployed people to train as computer technicians. Ambition Retail, a consortium of major high street shops, allows the possibility of 50,000 more jobs, and further jobs to come. Transco is recruiting at least 15,000 new dealers to train as gas fitters over the next few years.
  The new deal is providing solutions for industry and jobs with prospects for unemployed people.
  Mr. Beard: I have seen an excellent example of the way in which the new deal is working for both 16 to 25-year-olds and those over 25 in Bexleyheath and Crayford, and I know of the number and variety of doors that have been opened. Thameside, in the London borough of Bexley, has some of the greatest potential for business development in London, and the Thames gateway partnership is aimed at attracting new employers to the area. Will the new national network of training organisations be able to provide for the skills that employers may require, so that local people may retrain and benefit from the new opportunities that will arise?
  Ms Jowell: That is precisely the intention of the combined efforts of national training organisations, learning and skills councils and the new deal. I hope very much that those opportunities will be extended to my hon.
  436
  Friend's constituents and to the employers whom he mentions, but they should be under no illusion: were the Tories to be elected, the new deal would be scrapped.
  Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister could more accurately say that the new deal would be improved under the next Conservative Government. She knows that about a third of young people leaving the new deal go into jobs, and that half of them have lost those jobs within nine months. The record of the Wildcat Corporation in New York is 86 per cent. going into jobs, 94 per cent. of whom are still in them after 12 months. Now that the new deal taskforce has spent £175,000 taking advice from Wildcat, what has she learned about the reasons for the new deal failing to achieve the results that are achieved by Wildcat and that will be achieved by "Britain works" under the next Conservative Government?
  Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We hear more invented figures with the purpose of discrediting the new deal, a programme that has halved long-term unemployment among young people and which the Conservatives are pledged to scrap. We are taking lessons from Wildcat because that is important in trying to develop more help for the most disadvantaged young people, especially the ambitious, sectorally focused, high skill programmes that I have already identified.

  School Language Colleges
  Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on schools with attached specialist language colleges. [157916]
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In May 1997, there were 181 specialist schools and there are now 536, with an ambition to make that 650 by this September. Some 99 are language colleges.
  Dr. Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Little Lever school in my constituency, which achieved language college status and is already teaching five languages? The Japanese Government have funded a full-time teacher of Japanese and 15 Japanese women visited the school recently, dressed in national costume, and talked about their culture to the whole school. The teaching of Russian in the school has also prompted the art department to exchange its art work with a school in Russia. An international dimension has been spread across the whole curriculum of the school and out into the wider community.
  Mr. Blunkett: I very much wish to congratulate the school. I have a list of the languages taught—French, German, Spanish, Urdu, Japanese, Russian, Italian and Cantonese, as well as starter courses in other languages. I only wish that I had been at the school when the Japanese visitors came, so that I could have enjoyed their costume and dancing. I congratulate the Japanese Government on their excellent initiative in funding the first year of the post and I hope that we can develop that with other embassies and countries.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: What consideration has the Secretary of State given to making German rather than French the main foreign language taught in schools? One can spend four years at school learning French but find it very difficult to achieve an authentic accent, whereas after just 18 months of learning German even Germans can think one is a German, which is very satisfying. Teaching German also provides grammar, which has not been taught properly in schools since we stopped teaching Latin. Does he agree that die Zukunft ist Deutsch und nicht Französisch—the future is German, not French?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I do not.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I enjoyed that exchange and the Secretary of State will know that I, too, take an interest in specialist and language colleges. Given that the criteria for specialist schools are now so broad that it is in practice possible to be a selective school in virtually anything except one or two important academic subjects, and given that the Prime Minister was reported to have told the Association of Teachers and Lecturers recently that—in contrast to the Secretary of State's Green Paper—there seemed to be no remaining limits on the number of specialist schools, I invite him to give an indication of the longest timetable for implementation of the specialist schools programme. Can he tell the House whether any comprehensive schools will be left as what the Prime Minister's spokesperson so characteristically, inelegantly and grossly unfairly described as bog standard?
  Mr. Blunkett: I have comprehensively dealt with the last point on more than one occasion. The hon. Gentleman made a Freudian slip—I think that the record will show that he used the word "selective" when he meant "specialism". There is no limit on the number of specialisms or the number of specialist schools. They are comprehensive. Only 5 per cent. of specialist schools operating in 2000 retained some historic element of selection. Of the rest, less than 7 per cent. admitted children on the basis of aptitude.
  Specialist schools are non-selective comprehensive schools. Professor Jesson's research showed that 53 per cent. of pupils in those comprehensive specialist schools obtained five or more A to C grades compared with 43 per cent. of pupils in similar intake comprehensive schools. That shows that the specialist school programme works in the interests of raising standards as well as outreach to the wider community.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Secretary of State agree that language learning should not be seen simply as a utilitarian exercise for those wishing to communicate with non-English speakers, but as something that can enrich a person's entire educational and cultural experience? In that context, does he support schemes such as Sheffield's multilingual city initiative, which seeks to spread language learning throughout the community? Sheffield nursery schools have very high rates of language learning which children then take with them throughout their lives.
  Mr. Blunkett: The earlier a child can engage with other languages, the more successful that will be. I commend that and many other schemes that have developed, not only language tasters for nursery schools
  438
  but those providing links with other parts of the world using information technology, including the multilingual programme that I have commended in the city of Sheffield. My only regret is that I learned a language called Esperanto at school. It was a very good idea at the time, but it got me into certain difficulties at the age of 16 when I used it in Paris.
  Charlotte Atkins: Is it not the case that specialist schools under this Government are very different from those under the previous Government, in that they must ensure that a third of their budget is shared with the local community? In addition, the Government are promoting joint bids, so that two high schools can bid jointly for specialist status. Specialist schools are encouraged to share their resources with the community with after-school clubs and so on, so that instead of the winner-takes-all approach of the previous Government, our specialist vision is about sharing resources and improving diversity throughout our communities.
  Mr. Blunkett: A number of joint bids have already been approved. I want to see many more, particularly in areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency, where there are two schools within one small community. I want the collaborative approach to the bidding process to be extended so that schools talk with other schools and the education authority about which would be most appropriate for a particular specialism, and they work it through with their primary school feeders and the other secondary schools in the area. I want to ensure that they then reach out to the community so that the specialism is available to all, including adult learners.

  Exclusions
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the Government's policy on the exclusion of pupils from schools. [157917]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, the head teacher associations, local education authorities, schools and parents, many of whom welcome the extra investment that the Government are making in educating excluded pupils and providing in-school units for disruptive pupils.
  Mr. Amess: Will the Government please reconsider their ridiculous policy of setting targets for the number of children excluded from schools? In particular, will the Minister reflect on the damaging effects of circular 10/99, which has meant that in my constituency when a child was caught bringing drugs into school and the parents appealed, the child was reinstated on the basis of being found with drugs but not caught selling them? Does she appreciate how damaging that is to the morale of teachers and, in particular, the effect that it has had on the headmaster?
  Jacqui Smith: I have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman about that matter. We have listened to head teacher associations and strengthened our guidance to exclusion appeals panels. My right hon. Friend the

  439
  Secretary of State has made it clear that we do not expect head teachers to keep disruptive children in schools, and that we do not expect appeals panels to reinstate children excluded for selling drugs.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right for the Government to give schools that have a disproportionate number of children with very challenging behaviour every support, and that targets for exclusions should not be set where the local circumstances make it clear that they are unrealistic?
  Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right. We need to provide support for schools, which is why schools have welcomed the resources that we are making available for these purposes. This Government are making available 10 times the amount of money made available by the previous Government. As a result, there are 1,000 learning support units in our schools providing the support that disruptive pupils need. The removal of those pupils from the classroom enables children to learn and teachers to teach. Such initiatives, and the money to back them up, were noticeably lacking under the previous Government.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Minister concerned about children who have had to be excluded from school because they have contracted tuberculosis? What talks is she having with her colleagues in the Department of Health about reinstating the screening and vaccination programme that the Government dropped several years ago?
  Jacqui Smith: I have had discussions with my colleagues in the Department of Health, and the vaccination programme is being reinstated. However, the head teacher and the health authorities involved in the recent case in Leicestershire have made it clear that the children attending the school received screening where it was necessary, and that they were easily treated. Action in that regard is being taken by my Department and the Department of Health, and by local health and education authorities.
  Mr. John Hayes: How does the Minister reconcile her answer on exclusions with the maintenance and imposition of arbitrary exclusion targets? Those targets force schools to put up with disruptive and often violent pupils, who damage the opportunities of other children and undermine the morale of teachers already doing a very tough job. In addition, the targets call into question the judgment of governors, who make every effort to put first the interests of the whole school. Will the Minister take this opportunity to abandon those arbitrary targets and to put her trust in the professional judgment of heads and teachers? In that way she will back up our schools, governors, parents and pupils.
  Jacqui Smith: We do trust the professional judgment of our head teachers. We also accept what they have made clear to us—that they need the resources to support them in dealing with disruptive pupils before they get as far as exclusion, and in making sure that excluded pupils also receive the sort of education that they need outside schools. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) recently admitted
  440
  that when exclusion levels trebled under the previous Government, excluded pupils received as little as two to three hours' education a week.
  I recall from my time as a teacher that, under the previous Government, the lack of resources and the fact that there were no learning support units in place meant that there was no choice other than to exclude a child or do nothing. This Government have provided 10 times more resources for schools and local education authorities than did the previous Government. We trust the professionalism of head teachers, and we have made available to schools and local education authorities the resources that they need to deal with disruptive pupils.

  Schools (Ilford, South)
  Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on direct support given by his Department to schools in Ilford, South since May 1997. [157918]
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Schools in Ilford, South received over £0.5 million through the school standards grant in 2000–01, and will receive more than £1.1 million in this financial year. Since 1997, they have also been allocated over £3 million through the new deal for schools. All schools in Redbridge have benefited from increases of £33.3 million in the education standard spending assessment.
  Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. When I visited one of the high schools in my constituency which has technology college status, the head teacher told me that she had never had so much money. The school serves the most deprived part of my constituency. People from all over the world live there, and the parents of the children at the school speak probably as many as 100 different languages. Is it not a good sign that the Government are providing resources for those priorities? Can my right hon. Friend please ensure that the programmes that are already in place and the sure start programme, which is also benefiting my constituency, will continue for the next five years?
  Ms Morris: I am pleased to hear of the success of the schools in my hon. Friend's constituency. I record my thanks to the teachers in those schools. The improvements in results at all age groups have been faster than the national average and that is down to the hard work of teachers and support assistants. I pay tribute to them. It is interesting that the message that we have had from the head teacher in my hon. Friend's constituency is exactly the same as that from the infants school in Worcestershire. There is more money, they have never had so much money and they welcome it. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) said, we trust the professional judgment of teachers, and that is their message. I am delighted to reiterate that the increase in funding for education over the past four years will continue in the next Parliament.

  Sixth Forms (Lancashire)
  Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the impact of his future funding proposals for sixth forms in schools in Lancashire. [157919]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Schools can only gain from our proposals because their funding levels are protected by our real-terms guarantee: that their funding will be maintained at the 2000–01 level plus an annual uprating, provided that their numbers do not fall. This is an unprecedented guarantee. Schools have never before had a commitment to guarantee their real-terms funding in this way.
  Mr. Jack: I do not think that the head of the Lytham St. Anne's high technology college in my constituency would have understood much of the Minister's answer. The words from the Dispatch Box would give him little comfort about the fact that he is still struggling to deliver the new A-level curriculum. In addition, there is growing suspicion, now that the learning am skills councils are responsible for funding sixth-form education, about whether there will be discrimination against schools with a traditional sixth form. Can the Minister make an unequivocal statement today that the learning and skills councils will not discriminate against schools with traditional sixth forms and that such schools will be properly funded in future?
  Mr. Wicks: We have provided extra resources for curriculum 2000 for the new AS-level regime. Today I have given an unprecedented real-terms guarantee about the funding of those schools. I am sure that that will be good news for the head teacher, pupils and parents of that school. With the new learning and skills councils, which take over funding from April 2002, there will be a new regime. We are consulting and listening hard. It is important for each and every school with a sixth form that the funding is maintained. The role of schools with sixth forms is paramount in our education policy.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that the sixth forms at schools such as Haberghan and St. Theodore's in Burnley, like those in the rest of Lancashire, will be able to go forward and build on their success of the past four years and that they have nothing to worry about? Nobody should be putting scare stories around about what the Government are doing.
  Mr. Wicks: I congratulate those schools on their work. With curriculum 2000 our young people at 16 can now study four or five subjects rather than be narrowed down to two or three. I hope that no political party will try to dig out from the skip of scaremongering stories to the
  442
  effect that we are against school sixth forms. We are not. Our guarantee ensures that their funding is safe with the Labour Government.

  Teacher Recruitment (North-East Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: What proposals he has for improving teacher recruitment in North-East Lincolnshire. [157920]
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Schools in north-east Lincolnshire are already benefiting from the fact that there are more teachers in post in England than at any time since 1984. They come on top of an expansion of the graduate teacher programme to 2,250 places in England in a full year, the introduction nationally of new courses for those returning to teaching and further improvements to teachers' pay, including a 6 per cent. rise for newly qualified teachers.
  Mr. Mitchell: Like everyone else, I am delighted at the Government's efforts to improve teacher recruitment. That is only right and proper. However, we have a particular problem in north-east Lincolnshire in that more than 12 schools now have 49 vacancies: seven in technology, seven in English and seven in mathematics. It is important that kids from Grimsby should not be disadvantaged by any prolongation of this crisis. Will the Government consider special incentives for the recruitment of teachers to areas of particular difficulty and, within that, special incentives for recruitment to schools in disadvantaged areas?
  Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. There is a series of measures—apart from the general ones that I mentioned in my answer—aimed at shortage subjects and at those areas of the country that have particular difficulty in recruiting. This is the time of the year when vacancies occur, because it is the point at which teachers move from one school to another—clearly, every school in every local authority will be advertising. I know that my hon. Friend will be reassured that in each of the areas that he mentioned there have been large increases in applicants to start teacher training this year. I know that they will take a year to come through, whereas, of course, this September, the extra students—more than 2,400—who started training last year will have completed their training and will be joining schools. I very much hope that schools in his constituency will be able to recruit from them as well as from the record number of people who are leaving teacher training.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): MONDAY 30 APRIL—Second Reading of the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill.
TUESDAY 1 MAY—Remaining stages of the Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 2 MAY—Motion to approve standing orders relating to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
Motion relating to the establishment of a working group on provision for former Members.
THURSDAY 3 MAY—Debate on the International Development White Paper—"Making Globalisation Work for the Poor" on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 4 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 7 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
TUESDAY 8 MAY—Remaining stages of the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 9 MAY—Remaining stages of the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 10 MAY—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 11 MAY—Private Member's Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the first two weeks after the May day bank holiday will be as follows:
THURSDAY 10 MAY—Debate on "Creative Industries".
THURSDAY 17 MAY—Debate on employment zones.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 2 May, there will be a debate relating to a common asylum procedure and uniform status for persons granted asylum, in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 2 May 2001: European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 13119/00, Towards a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for persons granted asylum. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 28-viii (2000–1).]
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Will she give the House some indication as to when we might expect the dates for the Whit recess to be announced? I am sure that Members on both sides will be interested in receiving those.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the next Treasury questions, scheduled for Thursday 10 May, will actually take place? The reason I ask is that if there is any
444
question that that session will not take place on 10 May, the House will be looking for an opportunity next week for the Chancellor to come here to share with us the concerns that he shared with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In his speech to that bank, he clearly expressed anxiety about the way in which the British economy might be affected by the fall-out from the American downturn. That is of particular interest to the House, because during the past four years we understood that the Chancellor had abolished the economic cycle. However, clearly, the economic cycle is back and the Dispatch Box would be the appropriate place for the Chancellor to explain why, having abolished it, it is back.
We also note that next week, on 1 May, the House will consider the remaining stages of the Social Security Fraud Bill. Will the Leader of the House identify whether there will be time for the House to look at another matter regarding social security? I realise the constraints and the narrowness of the debate on remaining stages, but as the appropriate Ministers will be on the Treasury Bench that day, I am sure that the House would like the opportunity to question them about the £3.5 million the Government have spent on advertising benefit fraud, especially when it turns out that the advertising merely resulted in a distance learning package for those who want to learn how to do it.
Finally, we note today, from our monitors, that the announcement has been made of the 15 so-called people's peers. The right hon. Lady is deeply involved in this procedure and will be aware that when the Government axed the hereditary peers, they promised that, during this Parliament, they would set up a cross-party Committee of both Houses to address future reforms of another place. Despite our pressing them to do so, and our willingness to serve on it, they have not done so, but have announced the people's peers. Surprisingly, we note that the 15, chosen from 3,000 applicants, include three professors and seven knights—people who I am sure will make a valuable contribution, but who would otherwise have been obvious candidates under the normal procedures. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady could tell us what exactly the Government's definition of the people is these days.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady asked me for an indication of the dates of the Whitsun recess, which slightly surprises me as I have observed during the time that I have been in this post that every time that we announce the dates of a recess, someone on the Conservative Benches complains that we have only just come back from one. As we have only just come back from the Easter recess, I will bear the hon. Lady's observations in mind, but I am not in a position to give her the dates today.
The hon. Lady asked me about the Chancellor finding an opportunity to come to the House. I was really quite surprised by her remarks because my right hon. Friend has never ever suggested that the Government had abolished the business cycle. Indeed, it is precisely because we know mat the business cycle continues to exist, and will always continue to exist, that he has placed such emphasis on so managing the economy that we can have economic stability and stable economic policy, even as the business cycle proceeds. So, far from ever having suggested that there was no such thing as the economic or business cycle, my right hon. Friend has clearly always understood the opposite, but understood also that it is the

445
duty of Government to try to mitigate the ups and downs of the business cycle. The Conservative party signally failed to do that in all the years in which it was in power.
The hon. Lady asked me about the new list of peers—of course those appointments were made by the Appointments Commission—and she appeared to suggest that in some way the current procedures are defective. I have not had much time to scrutinise the list, but I understand that significantly more women and more people from the ethnic minorities have been appointed than was the case under the previous system. That seems to me to he evidence of good judgment on the commission's part. However, the principal difference is that this procedure is open and transparent, and that it is not a matter of peers being appointed simply on the decision and the judgment of the Prime Minister, which had always been the case under previous Prime Ministers. It is time that the Conservative party gave my right hon. Friend credit for being the first Prime Minister ever to give away patronage.
The hon. Lady then asked me about the issue of social security advertising—
Mrs. Browning: What about the joint Committee?
Mrs. Beckett: I beg her pardon; I must have lost that question in my notes. Yes, the Government intend to pursue joint discussions about how we handle the future development of the upper House. I recognise, and am pleased that the hon. Lady has placed it on the record, that the Conservative party is not unwilling to take part in such discussions. We shall certainly bear that in mind and we hope that we shall be able, over time, to get some agreement on how the further reform of the upper House should work.
The final issue that the hon. Lady raised with me was that of Government advertising, and she suggested in particular that Ministers from the Department of Social Security should be discussing the issue of DSS advertising. I thought that she gave the impression that she believed that this was misplaced spending on the Government's part. It may be slightly unfortunate for the hon. Lady that it is the case, as I am sure that she must now be aware, that, in real terms, the expenditure on Government advertising in this year is very close to the expenditure undertaken by the Government of her party in 1987. Of course, what is particularly unfortunate is that the hon. Lady chose the example of social security, because if the previous Conservative Government had been prepared to spend a little more on advertising the consequences of their policies in 1987, perhaps many people would have understood that they were taking away their rights to widows' pensions.
Mr. Joe Ashton: May I thank my right hon. Friend and you, too, Mr. Speaker, for the motion which is on the Order Paper for next Wednesday to set up a working group on the problems of ex-MPs—a proposal that is long overdue? It is not intended to provide any financial assistance and it will not cost the taxpayer any money.
446
In the past, no inquiry has been held into what happens when MPs lose their seats or when they retire.
Mr. Eric Forth: Declare your interest.
Mr. Ashton: The right hon. Gentleman can jeer as much as he likes, but this is a serious business. More than 600 MPs have left the House—half of them have retired—since about 1987. No one knows what has happened to them, about their jobs or their problems, or about what advice they might need.
Mr. Tony Banks: We all know where Jonathan Aitken has been.
Mr. Ashton: Well, we expect silly jokes from people who have a good job, and who will have a good job after the election, but the fact is that after the previous election many people lost their jobs, including friends of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
The Data Protection Act 1998 has made it virtually impossible to find out such information on a voluntary basis because it is not possible to gain the relevant names and addresses. Those are the things that we should debate seriously next Wednesday.
I am sure that the motion has the support of the Chief Whips of every party. You have done a great deal of work on the issue, Mr. Speaker, so has the Leader of the House, and I should like to thank you both for that.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He makes a very important point: there is cross-party support for a discussion to find out whether a voluntary organisation could be set up. He also makes the important point, which I certainly had not properly taken on board in the past and which may not be familiar to all Members, that partly because of the Data Protection Act 1998, there is no record of what has happened to former MPs or, indeed, to their spouses, or widows or widowers. It is extremely difficult for people to make contact.
Of course people are occasionally in touch with the welfare organisations, but there are many more with whom no one is in touch, some of whom are in considerable difficulties. My hon. Friend and others—literally, on all sides of the House—are interested in finding out whether it is possible to form some sort of voluntary organisation of former Members, which can keep in touch so that people can gain advice and support from others in similar circumstances.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Presumably, Phoenix the calf cannot now qualify to be a people's peer, but will the Leader of the House assure us that that great national asset can be used in future Government advertising? Clearly, that would be a great deal more effective than some recent Government advertising.
May we have a statement on the role of the Electoral Commission? Clearly, the commission has a very important responsibility, and perhaps it should be involved in assessing the role of Government advertising in the 12 months before a general election. That is but one of the many questions now being asked about the forthcoming election. Many other important issues do not seem to have been properly tackled by the commission.

447
Before any possible date for Dissolution, can we have a report on the commission's role in adjudicating on such matters? Obviously, some regulation is required if only because the taxpayer is getting very bad value for money in relation to Government advertising.
The right hon. Lady has referred to the 1987 advertising expenditure of more than £104 million by the then Thatcher Government, most of which was spent on selling privatisation. The public are concerned not just in case there is an attempt to skew the electoral process, but because such advertising represents very bad value for money. May I also draw her attention to the obvious necessity to review the fact that we should have fixed-term Parliaments? Several of her colleagues believe that greater attention should be given to that proposal. Fixed terms would enable the Electoral Commission to adjudicate more effectively on such matters as advertising.
Mrs. Beckett: To answer the hon. Gentleman's main point about Government advertising, I point out that it is not a matter for the Electoral Commission. However, the issue is already under scrutiny by the National Audit Office, which always monitors the effectiveness and value of any Central Office of Information advertising campaign.
As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, in some way, the advertising is unsuitable, unnecessary and totally ineffective, I point out that much of the advertising has been on police recruitment, and he may have noticed that there has been a substantial increase in recruits. Advertising has also led to an increase in teacher recruitment, and it has also encouraged people to join or to return to the health service, and there has been a huge take-up on that.
There has been advertising on issues—such as the working families tax credit, the national minimum wage, the children's tax credit and the minimum income guarantee—in which we think it is important for people to claim their entitlements. Sadly—to some extent, I suppose it is inevitable—if we wait for the news media to communicate to people that there is a new entitlement to, say, the children's tax credit that will start at the beginning of April, we would have to wait a very long time. The only way to ensure that people are aware of their entitlements is through Government advertising.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Phoenix the calf, at least the one thing that we can be fairly confident about is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not be photographed sitting in a field cuddling it.
Ann Clwyd: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend shared my misfortune last week. Although I know that she was in this country, I was in Turkey where I turned on the television and watched CNN. I had the misfortune of viewing the shadow Secretary of State for Defence talking about foot and mouth in the United Kingdom. Members on both sides are rightly concerned about its impact on the tourism industry, but they would have heard him saying that foot and mouth was out of control. He referred to funeral pyres and to all the matters that have turned tourists off coming
448
to this country. Will my right hon. Friend advise the House as to what we should do with the Tories who continually talk Britain down?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I was not able to watch CNN, so I did not see the interview to which she refers. Given that I understand that we are all anxious about the impact on tourism and the economy generally of the knock-on effects of the crisis, it is most unfortunate if any hon. Member, in whatever position or circumstance, acts in a way that causes greater alarm and despondency to be spread in what is an important market. I wish that I could say that it was uncharacteristic behaviour on the part of the hon. Gentleman to whom my hon. Friend referred, but I fear that I cannot.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Leader of the House recall that at the last business questions she said, following my encouragement, that she would consider scheduling a debate on the decisions concerning parliamentary pay and other associated matters? She has not done so, but I would be grateful if she would explain why. Does she not recall that, in the final weeks of the previous Parliament, she and her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench were extremely keen that the then Government should table such matters for decision on the basis that existing Members would be better able to judge needs and that those who were leaving the House—either voluntarily or involuntarily—would receive pension help as a consequence? In the light of that and her own past behaviour, will she reflect further and schedule such a debate for next week?
Mrs. Beckett: As the right hon. Gentleman said, I heard the point that he made and I have given the matter consideration. He attends business questions, so he will be aware of the enormous pressure and the requests for many issues to be debated. It has not been possible to find time for this issue to be aired at this time.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the preparations in South Africa for the Rio plus 10 conference in September next year to mark the 10th anniversary of the 1992 Earth summit, set up to establish greater international co-operation on environmental policy? In view of the crisis in international environmental policy caused by the decision of the United States Government to oppose the Kyoto protocol, will she find time in the near future for a debate so that we can consider the response of all relevant Departments to that conference?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He takes a keen interest in the issue, which he assiduously pursues. However, I cannot find time to have such a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, although he might consider the opportunities offered by Westminster Hall. It strikes me that although the debate on the international development White Paper will focus on globalisation and its impact on the poor, other aspects of world development also impinge on the poor, and the environment is one of them. Far be it from me to impinge on the prerogatives of the Chair, but my hon. Friend might try to fit the matter into the context of that debate.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The whole House will have been disappointed with the right hon. Lady's

449
response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) about the Senior Salaries Review Board report, especially as it relates to information technology. She has announced a debate on former Members, but seems to have ignored the SSRB's recommendation that future Members need the relevant decision to be made before the general election. Most decisions on information technology in this place occur without a debate on the Floor of the House, but will she at least table a motion—perhaps also for debate on Wednesday—to set up a group to ensure that all Members of Parliament are entitled to a supplied computer when they arrive? They would receive such equipment in any other job. That would save hundreds of thousands of pounds that will be wasted if the decision to supply that equipment is not taken before the election.
Mrs. Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am aware that he has a keen interest in such issues and is a campaigning member of the Information Committee. However, I must explain two things. First, it is clear from the SSRB report and many other discussions that a considerable amount of work and planning needs to be done before the new systems are fully operational. I understand his anxiety about newly elected Members and about making decisions in a changing context. However, I am not clear that hon. Members will be satisfied with the service available to them if the kit from central supply is provided in the immediate aftermath of the election, as he suggests. The SSRB report makes it clear that a substantial transitional period is needed.
Secondly, next week, the Modernisation Committee is taking evidence from hon. Friends who have been involved in such matters. That is, in part, because of concern expressed about the adequacy of IT support and how it will need to be developed substantially to implement the SSRB report recommendations.
Ms Debra Shipley: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to allow MPs a free vote on hunting and that that will be held in Government time?
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend knows, the Hunting Bill is in the upper House. The Government's approach has always been to allow a free vote on it. I have no reason to suppose that that stance is likely to change.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Leader of the House comment on the state of the approach roads to the Palace of Westminster on Tuesday, especially as those people who intend to protest in my constituency on that day have not sought the approval of the Metropolitan police for that line of route?
Mrs. Beckett: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, although I am not sure that the protesters have a line of route. He will appreciate that it is not wholly a matter for me. However, I am aware that the House authorities have been in discussion with the Metropolitan police who are mindful of their responsibilities to the citizens of London and the House.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Government have made many good efforts to help tourism over the past few weeks, and my right hon. Friend will be aware that
450
Calderdale has a thriving tourism industry. However, is she aware that Tory-controlled Calderdale council, in a cost-cutting exercise, has closed almost all the public toilets in Calderdale, thus sending a message that if people come to Halifax and the Calder valley, they cannot spend a penny? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the effects that that is having on tourism and, obviously, on public hygiene?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was not aware of the serious impact of that decision, and I can perfectly understand her concern on behalf of her constituents, let alone potential visitors to her constituency. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House, but it sounds to me like a classic for Westminster Hall.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is disappointing that even in what appear to be the dying days of this Parliament the Government have not introduced a debate in their time on the national drugs strategy. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the impact and seriousness of the problem facing the country, the effect on crime figures and on expense on education, health and social services, and the fact that in the past four years there has been only one debate on the subject in Government time, and introduce a debate as soon as she can?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I take the hon. Lady's point that those are important issues, but as she, too, regularly attends business questions she will be aware that it is only one of many subjects of substance which the House likes to debate from time to time, and it is not always easy to find time for debates on the Floor. However, I recommend to her, as I have done to others, the attractions of the extra debating time available in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem of term-time workers? Thousands of workers, mainly women, in educational establishments throughout the country, particularly universities, are laid off during the holidays. They receive no pay and are denied benefits during that time, so for about 20 weeks of the year they have absolutely nothing to live on. Many women took the job on the basis that they were told by the Benefits Agency that they would qualify for benefits, and those benefits have now been stopped. During the time that they are off work, they receive no national insurance contributions, which will obviously have a detrimental effect on their pensions.
The problem has gone on for nearly five years and is being considered by the Law Lords in the other place. Will my right hon. Friend provide for a statement to be made to the House on how long it will take for a judgment to be made, bearing it in mind that many of these women basically have nothing to live on?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As far as I can recall, this is a problem of considerable standing. I seem to remember it being raised some 15 or more years ago. He is right to express concern about the possibility that people have been given advice that has turned out not to be accurate. I fear that I cannot assure him that there will be a statement on the matter because the court case will continue in the near future,

451
but I can certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in case there is any information that he can give him.
Sir George Young: The Leader of the House has not announced time in the next two weeks for consideration of Commons amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, leaving it inevitably vulnerable to an early Dissolution of the House. She will know that the Bill contains a measure that has all-party support, namely the introduction of free nursing care in nursing homes. She will also have heard the Prime Minister yesterday commit the Government to overturning a decision on the future of community health councils. Are the Government seriously considering holding up a measure that is popular so that they can proceed with a measure that is unpopular?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, there is no question of the Government holding that up. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the Bill is still in the House of Lords and, indeed, that the Lords have not yet finished their consideration. He makes an important point about the further consideration needed in this House at some stage, but it is not usual to schedule that before the Bill has finished its proceedings in another place, as he will appreciate.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been in correspondence with the trustees of the pension fund on several occasions regarding the need to deal with the financial position of Members of or near retirement age who retired mainly in 1987 and before? Because of their salary at the time they almost certainly receive a pittance of a pension. As there is a substantial surplus in the pension fund, would it not be right for us to look carefully at what can be done to assist Members who, through no fault of their own, retired on such a small pension?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. Indeed, when I recently made inquiries, I was astonished to discover that only 8 per cent. of retired Members who now draw pensions from the parliamentary pension fund are entitled to the full retirement pension, whatever its level. However, I fear that my hon. Friend is wrong to believe that there is a surplus in the pension fund; there was a fairly substantial surplus but decisions taken by the Opposition when in government resulted in that surplus disappearing. Indeed, according to the Government Actuary, there is a potential for the fund to go into deficit.
I therefore fear that I cannot undertake to do as my hon. Friend suggests, but I acknowledge the point that he made. This is a matter for the House and if it decides to set up a voluntary organisation for Members who have retired from the House, voluntarily or otherwise, I hope that it will be handled more expeditiously in future.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to examine documents from the
452
Foreign and Commonwealth Office that were released on 19 April under the 30-year rule? In one of those documents, the British ambassador to Ireland, Mr. John Peck, wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home on 16 December and commented on the aftermath of the 1970 arms trial in the Republic. He said:
"whatever the verdict, if Mr. Haughey was not part of a conspiracy, he was at any rate up to the neck in a scheme to import arms illegally."
Today's edition of the Irish Independent reports:
"Senior Garda officers reported on a meeting between Charles Haughey and a senior IRA man months before the arms crisis rocked the Government, according to documents held in the Dail."
Will the Leader of the House agree to provide time for a debate on the content of those FCO documents and any additional information that is made available by the Irish Republic, bearing in mind the strong suspicion in Northern Ireland that some Ministers in the Irish Government at that time played a big part in assisting in the creation of the Provisional IRA, which then gave us 30 years of murder and terror in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Leader of the House will be able to reply.
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the issue in the 30-year-old documents to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I have no doubt that those documents will be the subject of much analysis and discussion. Although he raised substantial and weighty issues, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future. I believe that Northern Ireland questions will be held the week after next, and he may find an opportunity to raise the matter then. I suspect, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will decline to take responsibility for something that happened 30 years ago.
Ms Julie Morgan: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that people suffering from multiple sclerosis are concerned about the non-availability of the drug beta interferon for certain forms of the illness. I have a number of constituents who are anxiously awaiting the decision of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Can my right hon. Friend suggest anything that would cause NICE to make an early decision, as my constituents and many other MS sufferers and their families are awaiting that decision with anxiety and are currently in limbo?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I too, have constituents who are concerned about the matter, as I expect most hon. Members do. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We all understand the anxiety of those who hope and believe that they might benefit from the availability of such treatment. One of the reasons that it is being considered by NICE is that not everyone does benefit, although of obviously people hope that they will benefit. Everyone wants the consideration by NICE to be thorough and scientifically sound.
Miss Anne McIntosh: As the right hon. Lady knows, Sunday 29 April is census day. Will she join me in thanking the teams of volunteers who have been

453
delivering forms throughout the country? Can she assure the House that every precaution has been taken in the delivery and collection of forms to ensure that there will be no threat of the spread of foot and mouth disease? Can she also give me an assurance that every property that is occupied has been registered on the electoral roll for census purposes and will receive a form, so that we can have a full census of rural as well as urban areas?
Mrs. Beckett: As far as I am aware, it is believed that every property has been included, but I shall draw the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. A great deal of thought and discussion has gone into the handling of the census, in order to make sure that nothing is done that might exacerbate matters related to foot and mouth disease. The hon. Lady may recall that some time ago, the person who is the overall head of the census operation made it plain that careful thought had been given to that, and that every effort would be made to ensure that there were no problems.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while it has been a pretty good day for Lady Quango and the other 14 people's peers, it has also been a relatively good day for 1,500 women canteen workers who have been battling for 18 years to get equal pay? Will there be a statement about the fact that now, a meeting with some unreconstructed socialists like myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and other members of the miners group has finally resulted in a meeting with the brand-new Minister for Energy? The issue has been resolved and the canteen women will get an average of £10,000 apiece. Some of them will receive up to £40,000. They have struggled for 18 years, and have been bailed out by a combination of Labour Members and a Minister in the new Labour team.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a very welcome decision. I congratulate both of my hon. Friends, who have campaigned over a long period and assisted in putting the case, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who made the relevant decision.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I endorse entirely the comments of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), and I am delighted that the debate is taking place.
My question relates indirectly to foot and mouth disease and the measures introduced by the Government to give business rate relief to certain rural areas affected by the outbreak. I have had some support and I have had the ear of the Minister for the Environment, who heads the rural taskforce. It is extraordinary that Macclesfield, which has a huge, sparsely populated rural area in which livestock is the major agricultural occupation, is not eligible for assistance under the scheme. My constituency is not the only area affected. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Minister to make a statement on the issue, so that he can explain what action he is taking to include within the scheme Macclesfield and other areas that are currently omitted?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend to come to the House again in the very
454
near future, but I can certainly draw to his attention the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper concerns. I am confident that he will want to inform the hon. Gentleman about the discussions that have been taking place on the issue that he raises.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Now that British Steel has admitted that it lied to the work force of H. H. Robertson for business reasons, I have written to all of the 28 other hon. Members whose constituents are affected by the closure. In view of the very important issue that the decision raises and the fact that it could bring into disrepute the actions of many honourable company directors throughout the country, will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the subject, so that the same outrage cannot happen again?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend's concern will be shared by the other hon. Members whose constituents are affected, although I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate or statement on the matter in the near future. I remind him of next week's DTI questions, as he might find an opportunity to raise the matter then.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Leader of the House should be aware that we are now halfway through the Committee stage of the International Criminal Court Bill, which she has listed for completion on 9 May. The Committee is considering an 80-something clause Bill, but we are now debating clause 2 stand part. Before she says that our progress is the result of an Opposition filibuster, I point out that we are discussing immensely important matters. I made a speech during which 41 interventions were made, mostly by Labour Members. We were discussing the operation of the statute of Rome and its important consequences. We must have further debates about universal jurisdiction and diplomatic immunity, and provide an opportunity for the Government to explain to Amnesty International and others why there is no such provision. It is immensely important that the crucial issues that are involved continue to be fully and properly debated. Will she reconsider the timetabling of the final stages of the Bill for 9 May, so that we can extend the Committee stage and have a proper debate on them? That may also create an opportunity to discuss the office costs allowance and other matters.
Mrs. Beckett: I have not been following closely the progress of the Bill in Committee, but I shall make some inquiries about the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Sadly, there is often difference of opinion among hon. Members about the time that is required to consider different aspects of proposed legislation, and I cannot undertake to take the decision that he suggests. Indeed, the House is bound by the programme motion that it carried. I shall, however, draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister who is in charge of the Bill.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Saturday 28 April is workers' memorial day, which draws attention to the fact that 335,000 workers worldwide lose their lives each year as a result of their work. Will she give some thought to the possibility of erecting a plaque to commemorate the

455
workers in British industry who have lost their lives? I think that that would focus wonderfully the attention of this place on the need for appropriate health and safety legislation.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the lives that are lost every year as a result of accidents and errors in the workplace. It is not for me to decide whether the House considers erecting a plaque, but he is right to draw our attention to the extent to which the issue should be of concern to hon. Members from all parties, as I am sure that it is.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the right hon. Lady consider with her ministerial colleagues the problem of unannounced visits by Ministers to other hon. Members' constituencies, which I fear might be a growing practice? She will remember our correspondence on the fact that she found herself at the canal museum in my constituency just before Easter without having let me know of her visit. I am sure that she inadvertently failed to do so, and when I remonstrated with her about the visit, I received a full and sufficient apology. Of course, I am not trying to pursue that. However, the incident gave rise to concern because the press and local councillors knew of the visit, but the Member of Parliament did not. My secretary tells me that it is possible for hon. Members to find out the postcode of any place on the parliamentary database in seconds or minutes. It is essential that Ministers take the point seriously.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right, and Ministers take the point seriously. He said that he was sure that I visited his constituency without notifying him inadvertently. He knows that that is the case because that formed part of the explanation that I sent him. Unfortunately, my office, which is most assiduous and conscientious about such matters, was misinformed.
However, I fear that the hon. Gentleman's secretary is not wholly correct. I know from experience—not of the visit that we are considering—correspondence and advice given to constituents by advice bureaux that the postcode is not always an adequate identifier of constituencies. All Ministers' private offices always take steps to ensure that local Members of Parliament are notified of visits. I hope that the offices of Opposition Front-Bench Members take the same steps; I am not sure whether that is always the case. We shall continue to pursue the policy.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: I ask my right hon. Friend to seek assurances from Opposition Members about holding sensible debate on asylum issues, including during a pending general election campaign. In a council by-election that took place in my constituency last week, we retained a seat on a 4 per cent. swing to us. The Conservative candidate, whose name is Richard, but he likes to be called Dick, put out literature, which states:
"Elderly people are blocking vital beds in our hospitals because of the closure of local homes for them to be transferred to. Yet people who come to this country and have paid nothing get put up at the best hotels for free".
Can we have an assurance from Opposition Members that they will not use gutter politics when debating such a sensitive issue?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Leader of the House.

Foot and Mouth
1.17 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the foot and mouth outbreak.
As I did on eight occasions before the Easter break, and have done once already this week in a session with the Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I wish to update the House on the latest position on the disease, set out the measures that the Government are taking and give hon. Members the opportunity to raise points with me. I also wish to inform the House about the outcome of the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg this week and of my bilateral discussions there with the Dutch Agriculture Minister.
As of 11 am today, there had been 1,481 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease. For ease of reference, the House will wish to know that I am putting details of the number of cases in each constituency in the Library today. They will be updated daily. I am also making available to individual Members full details of the cases in their own constituencies, to supplement the early warning system that has been in place for some weeks.
More than 2 million animals have now been slaughtered for disease control purposes. Around three quarters are sheep, 20 per cent. are cattle and 5 per cent. are pigs. A further 475,000 animals have been slaughtered under the welfare slaughter scheme.
The latest figures show that 152,000 animals await slaughter and 218,000 carcases await disposal in Great Britain. The backlog of data not entered on the database that holds those figures has been greatly reduced. None the less, the figures still tend to overstate the position. There is a disposal backlog in Devon of around 85,000 animals and we are addressing that as a top priority. There are no significant disposal backlogs in other areas of the country.
We continue to work closely with the Department of Health on the public health issues surrounding the various disposal routes. There are no completely risk-free options. Updated and consolidated guidelines were published on Tuesday. The method of disposal in each case is the safest and most effective in the circumstances. The House will be aware that the numbers of confirmed cases continue to fall, week on week. From the highest point of 43 cases a day, on average, in the week ending 1 April, the average number of cases has fallen to 16 in the week to 22 April.
We have been able to lift restrictions in nine different areas where there have been no new cases for 30 days and thorough veterinary and serological testing has taken place. As a result, the tighter movement restrictions associated with infected areas have been lifted from some 5,000 sq km—1.25, million acres—of the country, affecting about 12,500 farms.
These figures show that we are continuing to bear down on the outbreak. We can be cautiously optimistic about the future course of the epidemic. The scientific advice was that the single most important action we should take against the spread of the disease was to reduce the time between report and slaughter to 24 hours. That has been our policy and it has been shown to be the right one.
The Government's policies for slaughter on infected premises within 24 hours, and on contiguous premises within 48 hours, have been crucial to the control of

457
the epidemic. Following formal advice from the chief scientific adviser and the chief veterinary officer, I can today announce for England a broadening of the existing areas of discretion for local veterinary judgment in the light of the developing disease situation. The devolved Administrations will be making their own statements.
The joint advice from the chief scientist and the chief vet follows detailed consultation with the veterinary profession and with the expert scientific group advising the Government on the course of the disease. This development is not, as some have reported, a relaxation; its purpose is to improve the achievement of the policy by refining the instructions given to staff in the field.
The key points are as follows: we will continue to kill all animals that are dangerous contacts, which will include animals on a significant number of neighbouring farms and beyond; on other contiguous premises, susceptible animals will be killed. Cattle may, however, be spared if there is adequate biosecurity. This will be a matter for local veterinary judgment, taking account of all the circumstances. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already published guidance—agreed with the veterinary profession—on the biosecurity measures that farmers can take to help protect their animals from infection. When cattle are not culled, they will be subject to regular veterinary patrols.
These refinements can be expected to provide some relief from automatic slaughter of cattle. They will not lead to a change in the policy of culling of pigs and sheep on contiguous premises. Pigs pose a high disease risk and can spread the virus. Sheep can carry the disease without showing symptoms, thereby causing further undetected spread.
Following consultation with interested parties, we shall be providing for the special circumstances of rare breeds of sheep, and of moorland and hefted flocks, based on tight biosecurity coupled with serological testing. Guidance on this will be issued to staff on the ground very shortly. These are complex matters of scientific and veterinary judgment. The new arrangements have to be right, to ensure that they meet real needs and contribute to, rather than hinder, disease control.
I would also like to update the House on the position regarding vaccination. The Government have given serious consideration to a cattle vaccination strategy in north Cumbria and possibly Devon, given the particular issues in those regions and, especially, the intensity of infection in certain areas and the forthcoming turnout of cattle from indoor housing to outdoor grazing. The Government accept the case for vaccinating cattle in those areas, but only if the vaccination programme is supported by a substantial majority of the farming community, by veterinarians, by the wider food industry and—I believe this to be crucial—by consumers.
As I told the Agriculture Committee on Monday, that level of support is simply not there, and the signs are that it will not now be achieved. Without that support, a vaccination programme would be very difficult to implement on the ground. We continue our discussions with all those who would be affected, but the case for a vaccination programme becomes less compelling as the number of daily confirmed cases and the weight of infection in the hotspot areas continues to fall.
I turn now to the livestock welfare disposal scheme. In the first week of April, 53,000 animals were slaughtered under the scheme, rising to 143,000 in the second week
458
of April and more than 150,000 last week. Opening the scheme generated a great many applications, at one stage apparently totalling close to 2 million animals. All applications have now been checked. This process has removed many of the duplicated applications—one particular producer put in 14 separate applications for the same animals. There are now applications covering some 1.3 million animals. Well over half a million of those animals have now been dealt with—either slaughtered and disposed of or withdrawn voluntarily, or because there was no welfare case to answer. By the end of today the backlog in Great Britain will stand at less than three quarters of a million animals, and we are on course to have completely removed the backlog by mid-May.
The welfare disposal scheme has been established to deal with severe welfare problems arising from the FMD movement restrictions that cannot be dealt with by other means. I am glad that we have been able to extend progressively the options available to farmers to deal with welfare issues, and to re-establish routes for their perfectly healthy livestock to be sold into the food chain.
As of Monday of this week farmers within infected areas, but outside the 3 km protection zones surrounding infected premises, have been able to enter healthy livestock into the food chain. As a result of those changes, the vast majority of farmers have practicable alternatives to the welfare disposal scheme. I am confident that the rate of withdrawals from the welfare scheme backlog will accelerate as a result.
In the re-establishment of routes into the food chain across Great Britain as whole, it is imperative for the payment rates for the livestock welfare disposal scheme not to act as a disincentive to farmers by providing more attractive financial options than the market itself. In order to ensure that, I am announcing today that payment rates for categories of livestock normally slaughtered for meat or meat products have been revised. All animals collected for slaughter or slaughtered on-farm from Monday 30 April will receive the new payment rates.
The rates for cull and draft ewes, new season lamb, clean cattle, and pigs are being revised to a level that represents about 70 per cent. of current market prices. For hoggets and cull sows, a higher rate of 80 per cent. is being established. Arrangements have been put in hand to ensure that all who have animals killed under the scheme are aware of the financial returns they will receive before they formally hand over their animals. I still intend the scheme to be reviewed on 22 May; meanwhile, I shall discuss with the industry the separate market-related issues in respect of light lambs and cull sows that would normally have gone for export. It would be misleading to expect an early resumption of export markets, but taxpayers cannot be expected to buy out the problem.
In my statement on 27 March, I outlined a number of actions flowing from our initial assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The consultation on the proposed ban on pigswill closed on 10 April. We received about 150 responses, nearly all of which favoured a ban. A number of detailed issues were raised; we are considering them as a matter of urgency, and I expect to make an announcement next week. We have also received a good many comments on our proposed 20-day standstill period, after movements on farms, for sheep, goats and cattle. Again, most representations are in favour, but a number of highly technical issues have emerged.

459
Because of the considerable interest that has been expressed, I have decided—in response to an explicit request from the National Farmers Union—to extend the consultation period for a further month from the initial deadline of 11 May. Cross-departmental examination of the controls on commercial and personal imports of meat and meat products is well under way, and I shall have more to say about the matter in the near future.
At this week's meeting of the Agriculture Council, I reported in full to EU colleagues the progress that we have made to combat FMD, and acknowledged the help given us by the Commission and other member states. As before, there was strong support for our efforts and those of my Dutch colleague, and for our determination to eradicate FMD. At my instigation and that of Laurens Brinkhorst, the EU will convene a conference later in the year to examine all aspects of our experience of this disease—in particular, that of the UK and the Netherlands—to help shape policy for the future, including vaccination policy.
Combating foot and mouth disease remains the Government's top priority, but as the disease is brought under control questions arise from farmers and others in the rural economy about options for the future. We therefore intend to work in partnership with farmers and others to identify ways of assisting the recovery of the farming sector. We shall focus in particular on farmers directly affected by FMD who face choices about their futures, and on the regions of the United Kingdom that have been hit hardest by FMD—especially, of course, Cumbria and Devon. As a first stage, the Government will concentrate on the need to provide high-quality, targeted business and agronomic advice to individual farmers, and will explore ways of improving marketing in the livestock sector, to the benefit of the whole food chain. The Government also intend to help livestock farmers to decide the optimum basis on which restocking should take place, taking into account the desirability of rebuilding flocks and herds that are high quality, disease-free, extensively reared and farmed in environmentally sustainable ways. As a further component of our recovery strategy, we shall work with the industry to develop insurance options against both animal disease and the economic consequences that disease brings, and we will share our thinking on that with our partners in the European Union.
Work to help farmers emerge from the crisis has begun, and will form part of the Government's long-term strategy for helping UK farming to restructure in sustainable, market-orientated and environmentally responsible ways; at the same time, it will take forward our policy for bringing about common agricultural policy reform.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for making his lengthy statement available to me a little while before he made it in the House. I warmly welcome the improving picture that he has been able to paint of the state of the crisis and the spread of foot and mouth disease. I would like to take this opportunity to express again our warm appreciation of the work of all those service personnel, vets and others whose efforts on the ground, in the front line of tackling the crisis, have helped to reduce the spread of foot and mouth disease.
460
I shall start with the improvement in the figures, because that is crucial in assessing the progress that has been made and also, perhaps, in judging the merits of the other policy changes that the Minister has announced. The Minister will recall that before the Easter recess I asked twice for his assurance that daily figures for slaughter and disposal would continue to be published throughout the recess. In fact, the daily publication of the figures ceased and was resumed only after a substantial public outcry.
It is important now to know whether the basis on which the daily figures for slaughter and disposal are calculated has been changed. For example, let us consider the problem of carcase disposal in Devon. The NFU advised on Tuesday that the sudden fall in the number of carcases awaiting disposal in Devon was not because more carcases had actually been disposed of but because the Ministry changed the definition of disposal. Now, apparently, the Minster counts a carcase as disposed of once it has been moved to a disposal site. Few people who live or work within the sight or smell of such disposal sites would agree with that definition.
If the improvement that the Minister claims is partly achieved by redefining disposal, it casts doubt on some of his other claims too. If one set of figures is manipulated, are others any more trustworthy? The fact that the Minister prevented me from talking to vets in the Ministry's regional office in Exeter last week does not inspire confidence that the Government are being entirely open. Will the Minister therefore tell the House exactly what changes have been made to the way in which those figures are calculated? Since his Ministry now—rightly—makes use of independent epidemiologists, will he allow an independent statistician to audit the figures that have been published since the outbreak started?
The Minister announced a change of policy today and he will understand that many people, including farmers, will be surprised by the suddenness of a change, which, despite his description of it, most people will see as a relaxation. A few days ago, the Government wanted to start vaccinating, which suggests that they believed that existing policies to control foot and mouth disease were inadequate. Now the Minister proposes to relax those same policies. When was the new formal advice from the chief scientist and the chief veterinary officer, to which the Minister referred, given to him? Will the Minister publish that advice today? Since this change of policy was announced by No. 10 Downing street just in time for the 10 o'clock news last night, can the Minister tell us when the decision was actually made?
No one wants a single healthy animal to be killed if that animal can be saved, but the surest way to minimise the incidence of animals being slaughtered is to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease. It is important that no risks should be run; policy must not be relaxed until it is safe to do so. Ending slaughter on contiguous farms now raises the question of why that policy has been maintained for so long. Have thousands of healthy animals been sacrificed in vain? We support any steps that save healthy animals from slaughter, provided those steps do not risk the further spread of the disease.
As culling on contiguous farms will apparently continue for sheep and pigs, can the Minister say whether the legal basis of such culls is clear? Will he confirm that his Ministry withdrew a court application to cull uninfected animals on contiguous farms in Anglesey recently? If cattle are not to be automatically culled on

461
contiguous farms, will tests be carried out promptly and regularly on those cattle instead? If such tests are not carried out on farms adjacent to infected premises, is there not a risk that foot and mouth disease could start to spread?
Have the Government ruled out the use of vaccination entirely? Does the Minister accept that the three tests that I have repeatedly set out, including yesterday in the House, are the right ones to assess whether vaccination should be used?
On the welfare disposal scheme, how long are farmers having to wait while their animals suffer before slaughter under this scheme occurs? The Minister will be aware of the public concern about the distress that some animals experience. If the backlog under the scheme is not cleared until the middle of May, is it true that some animals may by then have been waiting for six weeks?
As this crisis starts to pass its peak, does the Minister agree that attention must be paid to the origin of the outbreak? Is he aware that 15 parliamentary questions that I asked about this in March remain unanswered four weeks later? Will he undertake to answer all parliamentary questions that have been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members before any Dissolution of Parliament? Will he also assure us that, in the event of a Dissolution, the information that he promised today about the constituency spread of new cases will continue to be available to parliamentary candidates on a constituency basis throughout an election campaign?
Is the Minister aware that the Government's handling of foot and mouth disease is giving rise to more and more concern? Stories of muddle, delay and incompetence are still commonplace—telephones are not answered, faxes are ignored and contradictory advice and instructions are given. In many places, there is still a sense that no one is in charge. For example, can the Minister tell us who is in charge in Devon this morning?
The same muddle exists at a national level. Who is making the policy now—the Minister, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence? Last week, the chief scientist said that vaccination should be introduced to support the slaughter policy. The Minister agreed but the president of the National Farmers Union said no, so the policy was dropped. This week, the Minister and his advisers said that the cull of animals on contiguous farms was necessary to curb the spread of the disease. Then No. 10 spin doctors saw newspaper pictures of Phoenix, and the policy was changed.
When this crisis is finally resolved—and I repeated yesterday the four criteria by which that should be judged—there will have to be a full inquiry. Does the Minister agree that one key aspect of that inquiry will be to establish whether the spread of foot and mouth disease would have been very much less if the Government had learned the lessons of the 1967 outbreak and if they had acted on the timely advice that I and other Conservative Members have offered, on the record, at every stage during the past nine weeks?
This crisis has crippled our livestock industry, disfigured our environment and wrecked our tourist trade. It is costing families, businesses and taxpayers billions of pounds. It is a crisis that need not and should not have reached its present level. It is the Government's incompetence that allowed it to do so.
Mr. Brown: As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for his help and support. His
462
statement about the public officials dealing with the disease outbreak is genuinely welcome. He is right to thank officials working in a civilian capacity for different Government Departments, and the service personnel and the professional veterinary personnel in the private and public sectors who are helping to bear down on the disease. The whole House should thank those hard-working public servants who are all working for the common purpose of bringing this terrible outbreak of disease to an end, and to help the country get beyond it. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks in that regard.
I am less grateful for what the hon. Gentleman had to say about muddle and delay, and for his stories about telephones not being answered, and so on. In my experience, one only hears part of the story when such reports are put into the public domain. I do not think it sensible for anyone holding a responsible position in public life to go around attacking those who are trying to bring to an end this outbreak of disease as quickly as possible. Hard-working public servants are entitled to our support, not our condemnation. I am willing to meet individual Members of Parliament who want to raise particular issues with me. I have done my best to do so, as have other Ministers in the Department.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the figures for slaughterings and disposals. It is true that those figures were removed from the Department's website for a few days, but that was to ensure that they were accurate and consistent. The full set of figures was returned to the website on Good Friday, and the figures have continued to be updated ever since. We did not respond to pressure from anyone in that regard: our aim was simply to make sure that the information being provided was accurate.
I freely say to the hon. Gentleman that he is right to identify a problem in Devon. In my statement, I told the House that there is a difficulty with the backlog of carcase disposal in that county, but I strongly dispute that we are trying to deal with it by putting into the public domain figures that are not correct. We are trying to deal with the problem by clearing the backlog.
The hon. Gentleman alleges that I have prevented him from talking to vets. I do not know how I could do that. I can stop him going into Government buildings around the country to talk to civil servants who are trying to control the disease for the benefit of the country—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) must calm down.
Mr. Brown: I will not encourage publicity stunts—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I instructed the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton to calm down. She must calm herself.
Mr. Brown: The rules have not been made especially for the hon. Member for South Suffolk. I am taking the same line with all hon. Members. Of course I will agree to requests by hon. Members with regard to visits to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food premises for purposes that relate to their constituencies. It is right to

463
continue with that policy, but I am not going to facilitate wholesale visits to Ministry premises all around the country in the middle of a disease outbreak.
I turn now to vaccination. The crucial issue in determining vaccination policy is consumer acceptance of such a policy. It is the consideration of consumer acceptance that drives the views of retailers, processors and farmers. I welcome the fact that other Ministers in the European Union have taken a similar view. The question of vaccination needs to be discussed in a rational and scientifically based manner once the outbreak has been brought to a conclusion.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk asked how we are prioritising our work under the welfare scheme, and talked about the backlog. We have asked the RSPCA to help us prioritise cases so that we get to the most needy ones first. The hon. Gentleman asked about scientific advice to me. It is based on the advice of the chief scientist and chief vet. The change in emphasis on the contiguous cull results from a conference that the chief vet held last Friday, where he consulted private sector and public sector veterinarians across the regions and in particular from affected regions. It is not surprising that a disease outbreak that has moved rapidly should require rapid responses in policy to deal with it. This is the response that, after consideration, the chief vet and chief scientist are recommending to me. I am more than willing to put their formal advice and the guidance given to veterinarians locally in the public domain.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would continue to update the information on constituency cases. Yes, I will place it on an updated basis in the House of Commons Library and will endeavour to place it elsewhere, so that all those with an interest can have continuing access to it, whether or not Parliament is sitting.
This is a serious disease outbreak. It is now moving towards its conclusion, but we will have to respond to further incidents. There will be outbreaks. It is not possible to say where they will occur or how many there will be, but advice to me is that there will be further outbreaks. We have to be ready to stamp on them where they occur and cull them out quickly. We will be able to achieve that far more easily if we have public backing for our policies, in particular the backing of the livestock industry, farmers and the broader rural community. Frankly, if the House can show some unity of purpose, it will reflect better on all of us in the days to come.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend has said that the vaccination of cattle is not feasible in present conditions. What about the vaccination of Herdwick sheep and other special sheep breeds as an addition or alternative to his policy of tight biosecurity and serum testing? Could we not have both policies introduced?
Mr. Brown: This is an important issue and we have given it substantial consideration and examination. The professional advice to me from the chief vet and others who advise him is that vaccinating sheep is not an option. The advice from John Thorley is that the National Sheep Association is opposed to vaccination, and there is a range
464
of reasons for that. Even for rare sheep breeds and special sheep breeds it would not be right to try to cull out the disease in hefted sheep as an automatic response. For that reason the proposal that I have explained to the House today is to manage them where they are and to test them in the autumn when they are brought down from the areas where they are extensively farmed.
Mr. Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for his statement and his usual courtesy in providing an early copy. This is welcome news and, indeed, a common sense approach to the situation. I should like to raise a number of points.
It is still disappointing that there is no news whatever about compensation for the over-30-months scheme. That has become quite an issue. Do I take it that the Government are not intending to give compensation for that particular problem? Surely it must be one of the easiest schemes to implement.
Will the Minister look at the situation concerning pedigree animals, particularly in respect of welfare disposal? Clearly, pedigree animals are not valued highly enough if entered into the welfare disposal scheme, although they suffer the same welfare problems as other animals, their value notwithstanding.
What assessment has the Minister made in respect of the percentage of infected animals that have been part of the contiguous cull? Bearing in mind the substantial number of animals that have been killed, it would be useful to know what he believes the actual number of infected animals to have been.
Will the Minister confirm that, today, there are still some new cases that are not in the existing infected zones—in areas that are somewhat remote from them? That is, of course, worrying.
Finally, on the pigswill consultations, I am sure that the Minister has received representations from those who will be substantially affected as regards whey feeding. There will be a major effect on cheese making—an important industry in many parts of the affected rural areas.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right; I have received representations about whey feeding and the proposed pigswill ban. I am looking closely at that and other issues related to the brewing industry, as part of a broader consideration—although, clearly, it is a discrete issue.
On new cases, I have already referred to the fact that we could expect sporadic outbreaks in different parts of the country. I understand that they occur for three main reasons: the movement of vehicles; the movement of people; and the movement of animals. I have placed advertisements in the farming press about biosecurity. In all my meetings with farmers, I emphasise the importance of biosecurity, farm by farm. The hon. Gentleman is right: if we are to defeat the disease, we must all work together and focus on the measures that are necessary—farm by farm—to prevent the disease from getting on to a farm and spreading from it.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the percentage of infected animals in the contiguous cull policy. The purpose of the policy is to get to the animals as quickly as possible so that the number of infected animals is relatively low. We know that if we do not get there quickly, the number of animals infected will rise

465
remorselessly and will then spread the disease. I know that it is hard, because individual farmers—although they understand the general reason for the policy—always argue that their particular animals, especially the high-value animals, should be given a chance. That is a perfectly understandable and human response. However, it is my painful duty to have to assert the broader public interest; it is in the interest of the rural community, the livestock industry and individual farmers that we cull the disease out and return to normality as quickly as we possibly can.
I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about pedigree animals. However, I have to beware of creating an alternative market for livestock through the welfare schemes. I will consider his representations—they are fair. As I said in my statement, I want to look at the other two sectors—lightweight sheep and sows—where the market is compromised, at least in part, by the export ban. The circumstances are specific and I want to discuss them further with the leadership of the farmers' unions and others with a particular interest. However, there is no easy solution. The worst thing I could do, through trying to be helpful, would be to create a false market that would, in turn, merely suck in imports and, frankly, do medium and long-term damage to the livestock industry.
I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of people with over-30-months animals. I am keeping the issue under review. It is not fair to say that a conclusion has been reached, but I know that he understands the difficulties as well as the obvious merits of the case that he presents.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I thank him for his tireless hard work during the past few weeks. Does he agree that there is a need for better contingency planning and for an increase in contingency funding for his Department? Specifically, will the independent review, which is referred to on page 25 of the MAFF departmental plan, where there is an overview of the business planning process, incorporate the lessons that should be learned from the foot and mouth outbreak? The question is not if, but when, we shall be faced with a third outbreak, but of a different disease—whether it be BSE, foot and mouth or swine fever.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The Department will need to reflect on its contingency planning arrangements, not just within the Department but across Government, in the light of this unusual, indeed unique, disease outbreak—at least the pattern that it has taken is unique. There are other things that Government can do to prevent such an occurrence happening again, and I have discussed them in my statement: the re-examination of our rules on personal food imports, on commercial food imports, on pigswill, and on the issue of the standover of animals that have been moved for commercial purposes. All this is being looked at very hard at the moment, and I hope to have something to say to the House on some of it shortly.
Sir David Madel: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I asked him, in a written question on 9 April, whether he would release vaccine to zoos that may need it to vaccinate endangered species that are susceptible to foot and mouth disease.
466
He also knows that Whipsnade zoo is in my constituency. Apart from the welfare of the animals there, it is an extremely important part of the local economy. Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether vaccine can be released to Whipsnade zoo, so that it may have the option to vaccinate if it considers it necessary?
Mr. Brown: There is a vaccine strategy for zoos; I am sorry if I have not let the hon. Gentleman have a copy of it. I will ensure that he has a copy; in fact, I will send him two, so that he can give one to his zoo. The circumstances in which vaccination of animals could be permitted by Government are clearly set out, and there has been discussion with organisations representing those who operate zoological premises.
Mr. Doug Henderson: One thing that has characterised the last two or three months has been the movement in scientific opinion, which has confused many of my constituents and, I believe, other people in the country. Members in the House and in the country recognise, against the background of that moving scientific opinion, the determined and measured way in which these issues have been addressed by my right hon. Friend, but may I raise with him the issue of information to Members of Parliament?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that decisions taken be communicated accurately? Does he have a fast-track system for dealing with questions? Most of the questions that Members are currently asking are real questions, which have been raised by constituents who have real problems, and we need real answers. Does my right hon. Friend have a fast-track system for dealing with those; if he does, could he have a faster-track system for dealing with them?
Mr. Brown: There is a fast-track system for Members of Parliament; there is an established helpline for Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend asks whether we could have an even faster track, presumably for Members for Newcastle, and of course I am very sympathetic to that—so if he has a word with me afterwards, I will sort out his problem, whatever it is.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the Minister clarify the advice given as to the effects of pyres on grazing land? As he is aware, this week restrictions were lifted from my constituency; but farmers are concerned about the advice which, as far as we understand it, sought to minimise the risks. There was a suggestion that any particulates and other noxious substances would quickly dissipate in a matter of months, but stock is now being moved in my constituency and farmers really want to know whether they should be putting their stock out to grass. What advice will be available, given that one of the first pyres was lit in my constituency at a time when there was quite a lot of wind and the smoke spread throughout my constituency and changed direction? What advice will be given to those on farms close to the pyre and close to the fallout of the pyre? Should stock be put out to graze, and if so, when?
Mr. Brown: The prospect of the foot and mouth disease virus being spread by the fires is very remote indeed, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there

467
is a need for human health advice. The chief medical officer has just revised and updated his advice, and that is in the public domain. There is a need for advice from the Environment Agency, dealing with any environmental contamination, and above all there is a need for advice to farmers on restocking protocols. If the hon. Gentleman cares to contact my office after this exchange, I will ensure that he is given clear-cut advice to pass on to his constituents.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: In a similar vein, I should like to ask what environmental study of the pyres and landfill sites will take place to ensure that the people who live in the surrounding areas feel safe. The long-term monitoring of landfill sites, as well as pyre sites, is very important. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take on board the importance of the Intervention Board and the fact that the farming community still has difficulties—everything seems to be going ahead, but when it comes to the final signature on the letter, things do not happen as speedily as the farmers expect. What encouragement, help and assistance can be given to the Intervention Board to ease the pain that farmers are suffering at the moment?
Finally, I believe that the Chamber was at its best when both sides worked together to try to eradicate the diseases, instead of which we are degenerating into scoring cheap political points, which does no parliamentarian any good whatever. I hope that the true credit will go to those involved in fighting the disease—those in MAFF and the armed forces, and obviously those working for the NFU who are not getting the thanks that they deserve.
Mr. Brown: The public service has received help and support from NFU officials, who have worked alongside those at our regional centres, liaising with the farming community and performing an invaluable role in this difficult situation. The Intervention Board has been given extra resources to deal with the schemes that it is administering on the Government's behalf throughout Great Britain, but the right way to deal with the animals constrained by the movement restrictions is to bear down on the disease and to find a market-oriented approach, rather than looking to emergency state schemes. Environmental monitoring will continue, and we shall bear in mind the long-term effects of the disposal routes, not just the short-term ones.
Mr. John Burnett: The Minister has said that the backlog in Devon is now 85,000 animals—a considerable reduction and a considerable improvement. Today, and every day, many thousands of carcases are being moved to rendering plants and, probably, to landfill sites. Fortunately, there has been a significant diminution in Devon of confirmed cases in the past week. The Minister has announced a change in the contiguous cull policy. Taking all those factors together, will there be an end to the pyres and to the necessity for the huge burial grounds?
Mr. Brown: I know that it is painful, but the policy of culling out the disease must continue until we have removed the disease. There is no medicine that I can give to the animals, nor other intervention that I can take, that will get rid of the disease. Unless we stop the disease,
468
it will spread remorselessly, so we cannot relax our guard. As I said in my opening statement, I acknowledge that we have had a problem with disposal routes in Devon.
As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has raised the issue with me—there is no universally accepted disposal route. I understand what he says about the resistance to the pyres. They disfigure the landscape and people worry about the consequences, so I assure him that we will try to find disposal routes that are acceptable to local people, but I cannot confidently say that I am certain that we will be able to do so in all circumstances, because arguments can be made against, as well as for, each disposal route. I am afraid that that is the best I can do for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being the calm, rational centre of the storm that has been swirling around him—unlike the cynical opportunism that we have seen from the Tory party?
Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the excessive movements of cattle, which he has mentioned? The House has been told of a farmer who was shocked to discover that a flock of sheep that he had bought had been on 11 different holdings in the past two months. In some parts of the country, it is claimed that 10 per cent. of sheep disappear. Some of them die, but we believe that some are counted several times to increase subsidies.
Can we ensure that we identify the reason for the spread of the disease, which has been far greater than in the past in this or any other country? The main reason has been the illegal movements of sheep and other animals around the country to increase subsidies.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to this extent: we have all been surprised at the number of sheep movements that result from the patterns of trade. There is a range of reasons for that, but they have implications for disease control. That is why I am consulting about a standstill period before sheep that have been traded can be moved again.
The implications for the current support regimes of the European Union—particularly the headage-based ones—have not been lost on anyone. I am clear in my own mind that, in future, we shall move away from headage-based schemes—for hill farmers specifically and, more generally, under the sheep premium regime—when the Commission puts its reform proposals forward. We shall move much more closely towards schemes that support farmers' incomes through a series of agreed criteria and away from supporting just the volume of livestock. That is the future of public support for the industry, and the Government need to discuss it carefully with those interested in the industry.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister accept that he would better create unity in the House and confidence in his policies if he allowed my hon. Friend the shadow Minister access, on behalf of the Conservative party to vets, officials and others? The Minister's attitude on that has frankly been reprehensible.
Does the Minister also accept that the policy that he has presented is hardly a joined-up one? The changes that he has announced today, the vacillation on vaccination

469
and the Phoenix factor suggest that we have had the needless slaughter of many animals over the past six weeks.
Mr. Brown: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. I cannot deny the Opposition spokesman access to vets and I am not seeking to do so. My responsibility is for the work of the Ministry and of public officials. I want them to focus their full-time attention on eradicating the disease. As I have said very carefully, a special rule has not been devised for the Opposition spokesman; we are applying it equally and consistently to Members on both sides of the House.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the pattern of the disease has changed as it has spread, as we have borne down on it and as the number of cases has declined. Throughout, I have followed the scientific and veterinary advice available to Government and—to be candid about it—I have done more than that. I have put the advice into the public domain and, more than that, I have done what in my understanding no other Minister has done before. I have arranged presentations for hon. Members—I understand that the hon. Gentleman in attended one of them—to explain the epidemiology and to explain the case for vaccination. We have allowed the issues to be set out, so that we all could consider them. As I have said on a number of occasions—I repeat it now—whenever I make a decision based on scientific advice, I am willing to share that advice and to explain very carefully why I have arrived at the decision that I have. That is precisely what I have done today.
Mr. Tom Levitt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, not least because it will take the pressure off the livestock disposal welfare scheme.
However, I wish to raise a livestock welfare issue of which my right hon. Friend's officials are aware. It does not seem able to be solved. My constituent, Mr. James Rotherham, runs a trout farm and, because anglers cannot get to the riverside, there is no demand for his trout to be put into rivers and lakes. Even if there were such demand, he would not be able to reach the rivers and lakes because of the travel restrictions. That means that thousands of trout on his farm are getting bigger and bigger in a very confined space. They are not suitable a for selling to the retail trade and the fact that he cannot get rid of them means that a welfare issue has arisen because of the travel restrictions on the land around the area where he stocks the fish. Will my right hon. Friend consider this issue as a matter of urgency because the problem is getting desperate?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is tight to explain the dangers of creating a false market. Although I shall give detailed consideration to the special circumstances that he sets out to see what can be done, I cannot promise to resolve them.
Mr. David Curry: The changes in the welfare scheme are sensible, but they leave farmers with cattle that have gone beyond the 30 months seriously adrift. The Minister must urgently address that problem. Is he aware that when the Government's chief scientific adviser met the Select Committee on Agriculture yesterday, he made no reference to a possible change of policy on contiguous culling? Indeed, he emphasised that
470
the risk of infection from a farm with foot and mouth disease to a surrounding farm was 17 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that the change in policy follows science not sentiment, and that pictures in the newspapers of cuddly animals—however heart-rending—have not influenced that decision?
Mr. Brown: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Veterinary consideration of how to handle the difficult issue of cattle in the contiguous cull was considered by the chief vet at his conference last Friday. He has received many representations specifically on that topic from the vets who have to do the difficult and distressing job of carrying out the policy in the regions. I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands that, in addition to policy issues, there is a range of practical difficulties to consider. However, the policy was under review well before any individual incident was reported in the papers. We would be wrong as policy makers to extrapolate public policy from individual cases that always involve very young animals such as Lucky the lamb and Phoenix the calf. I understand that they may serve as symbols, but there are special circumstances in both cases.
On the right hon. Gentleman's other concern, I understand that to be the case. However, we must not relax the policy because that will allow the disease to spread remorselessly. I take comfort from the fact that we are getting to it quickly enough for the number of animals that are showing signs of the disease to be relatively small. The crucial consideration is that things will not stay that way if we do not act firmly now.
Mr. Harry Barnes: This is a welcome statement in difficult circumstances. In Chinese mythology, Phoenix ushers in a new age, and these provisions might at least mean that we are at a new stage. How will the change in policy affect the number of slaughtered animals that are being put into landfill sites? As livestock is now going into the food chain, will we be able to lessen the amount of carcases that go into landfill sites and therefore reduce the 111 sites that are in England at the moment?
Mr. Brown: As the number of infected premises steadily declines, the number of dangerous contacts and contiguous culls are also remorselessly declining, which means that fewer animals will have to be disposed of by the differing routes. We are considering the most appropriate route for each set of circumstances, but we are going to have to use them all for the foreseeable future. There is no perfect solution. Arguments can be made against each route, but there are even more powerful arguments against doing nothing.
Mr. Roger Gale: I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that when a veterinary surgeon discovers symptoms that he or she believes to be indicative of foot and mouth disease, the procedure is that the Ministry is notified and the case is either confirmed or, on the basis of the evidence, which may be insufficient, rejected. If it is rejected, I understand that the Ministry might, quite properly, authorise a precautionary cull. If that takes place, is it correct that a post-mortem examination and blood tests are carried out in every case

471
and that where foot and mouth is subsequently confirmed, those cases are added into the outbreak figures? If that is so, at what stage are they included?
Mr. Brown: I promise to let the hon. Gentleman have a detailed written answer to that because I want to be certain that my response is correct. The principle that he enunciates is right. Veterinarians are allowed to exercise clinical judgment on the site and do not have to check in with the veterinary headquarters in Page street if the situation is clear. However, it is right to remind the House that for every three cases that are reported to us as suspected foot and mouth, two turn out to be false alarms.
Charlotte Atkins: I very much welcome the decision to allow farmers outside the 3 km protection zone to get their animals into the food chain. That will certainly help many of my farmers and butchers that source locally. Given the fact that the impact of foot and mouth goes far wider than the farming and agricultural communities, why is the compensation that is being allocated through Advantage West Midlands based on the percentage of the population involved in agriculture? That excludes Staffordshire, which is one of the worst affected areas outside the main hot spots.
Mr. Brown: I will have to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to respond to my hon. Friend's second concern. The formula is a matter for him. We decided to use regional development agencies as deliverers of support because of the idea that local people would best know local circumstances and be able to respond more easily to local demands. I welcome what my hon. Friend says about getting the supply chain moving. That is crucial for the medium and long-term future of the British livestock industry.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Minister aware that tests on David and Caroline Gilder's animals at Bozard farm, Woolstone, near Tewkesbury, have proved negative and hundreds of animals have been unnecessarily slaughtered? Hundreds more on surrounding farms have also been unnecessarily slaughtered, and I shall table written questions on a similar situation on a farm near Whitby in Yorkshire. In cases of genuine misdiagnosis, it is reasonable that the Government pay compensation not only for the animals slaughtered, but for all consequential losses. Will he seriously consider that?
Mr. Brown: I cannot announce an alteration to the compensation arrangements. However, I will consider the individual case of the hon. Gentleman's constituents if he refers it to me. I am not certain of all the circumstances involved and it would be unwise to go further, other than to make the general point that it is incredibly hard for the farming community—in particular, individual farmers—to have their animals taken, especially under the contiguous cull policy. Of the animals that seem healthy, some might be healthy, some might be incubating the disease and many will almost certainly be dangerous contacts. The policy is for the general good, but the individual farmer always hopes that it will not be applied to him and wants us to wait and see. The hard truth is that
472
we cannot wait and see. We must act for the general good, not for the specific good. The animals might not have the disease, but if we do nothing they will get it.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and inform him, with some relief, that we have not had an additional outbreak in Monmouthshire for more than two weeks. However, the 17 cases in my constituency have had a devastating effect. Does he agree that among the lessons to be learned are those relating to the long-term transportation of livestock, the practices of some livestock dealers and the need for sub-regional abattoirs? When he meets his colleagues in the European Council, will he assure them that some farmers will not want to get back into farming? They need an early retirement package and progress must be made on that.
Mr. Brown: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. On the unresolved issues—in particular, whether more can be done to help those who have decided to retire from the industry—I am giving further thought to what can be done in these special circumstances.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that although we have not had an outbreak in my constituency, we have been badly affected by the restrictions on animal movements. He announced that from Monday 23 April, some restricted livestock has been allowed to enter the food chain. Is he aware that as of Thursday last week, no information had been provided to trading standards, so no movements can be made? Can he assure that House that that hurdle has been passed and the system is working smoothly?
The Minister also announced changes to the welfare disposal system. Is he aware of the severe consternation that the system is causing to pig producers in the Vale of York, especially since he gave a commitment that the original payments would run for eight weeks from 23 March? The cut in payments to £37, or probably less, for clean animals will cause grief to those producers.
Mr. Brown: I understand the second point that the hon. Lady makes, which is of course fair. However, I have to weigh up the danger of continuing with rates that I am advised risk creating an artificial market that is more attractive than the actual operation of the supply chain. If we did that, we would remorselessly suck imports into the food chain and perhaps permanently displace British products, which would not be in the interests of the livestock industry. In addition, the state, rather than the consumer, would be the purchaser of a great deal of livestock—much more livestock than we should purchase. That was a hard decision, but I believe it to be right. I gave an assurance that the scheme would continue to run; I gave no assurance about adjustments of the rates. Although the situation is tough, we would do far more harm than good by trying to keep the rates artificially high.
I understand the other point that the hon. Lady made, and perhaps she will allow me to write to her about it.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that contrary to what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) keeps saying, if the current downward trend continues, this outbreak will have been

473
contained far more successfully than that of 1967, which is remarkable given the present outbreak's much wider geographical spread?
How much truth is there in the reports that my local rendering plant in Exeter has been working at only 60 per cent, of capacity? Given the terrible problems that we have had with carcase disposal, surely that is totally unacceptable.
Mr. Brown: I do not think that the situation is exactly as my hon. Friend describes it, although I am aware of the reports. I have asked that the situation be examined, and if the plant is able to handle more work, which of course we have, we will send it to them. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the comparison of the current outbreak with that of 1967.
There will be a time to reflect when we have exterminated foot and mouth disease in this country. People will want to consider the way in which the two outbreaks were handled, but the 1967 outbreak had many different features and there was a point at which there were 90 new infected premises a day. We have not even got beyond half that rate.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister may know that half of my constituency was declared an infected area because there was a suspected case over the border in Powys. That was six weeks ago. The case proved to be negative, but the infected area status still applies to half of my constituency. I understand that there will be movement on that within 24 hours. Will the Minister assure me that there will be better liaison between his officials and those of the devolved Administration in Cardiff? Will he assure me also that Intervention Board officials will have a better working relationship with officials of the devolved Administration, because these matters are very important?
Mr. Brown: The Intervention Board is of course shared between myself, acting as the Minister for England rather more than for the UK, and the Ministers in Wales and in Scotland, so it serves Wales just as it serves England and Scotland. The working relationships at ministerial and official levels between my Department and the devolved authorities have been very good, or at least that is my perception. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to consider a specific issue of communication or another matter, I will willingly do so, but I have to say that the implementation of the policy is wholly devolved and is a matter for my colleague the Secretary for Rural Affairs in the Welsh Assembly, not for me.

Points of Order
2.24 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that at business questions before the Easter recess, I drew to the attention of the House the fact that Members were using written questions to seek information about other Members' constituencies when one could not clearly identify a reason for the question to be asked. I named the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who had engaged in that practice. Since then, it has been drawn to my attention that the hon. Gentleman—I gave him notice that I intended to name him—has tabled no fewer than nine questions to nine Departments about my constituency. So probing and wide-reaching are those questions that one Department has had to draw up an answer of four pages.
The cost to the public of answering such questions is enormous. Surely they are an abuse of parliamentary privilege by Members. As there is an election coming and these questions are clearly asked purely for party political purposes and the production of election literature, I wonder whether this is a matter in which you could intervene, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's concerns. There is nothing in the rules of the House to prevent Members submitting questions that relate to another Member's constituency. However, if Members choose to ask such questions, I expect them as a matter of courtesy to give notice in advance to the colleague whose constituency is the subject of the question. If a question of that nature has been submitted without notification, I deprecate that. More generally, I hope that Members who are contemplating such action will consider carefully whether it sits well with the purpose and spirit of parliamentary questions and answers.
Mr. Tim Boswell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I crave your indulgence briefly to make two separate points of order. The first is simply a matter of the record. Today, in relation to oral Question 9 to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which was about specialist schools, I, in a perhaps somewhat feline fashion, inserted the phrase "selective schools". The Secretary of State chose to suggest to the House that it was a Freudian slip. I gather that he now accepts that I meant what I said.
The second point of order is much more serious because it involves people's livelihoods. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this morning there was news of approximately 1,000 redundancies at the British works of Timken, manufacturers of bearings and related products, in Northampton. That will have a considerable effect because almost all those jobs will be lost by people in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) and in my constituency, where there is also a small Timken facility. That is a major blow to the economy of our area and severs a long-standing relationship with a well-respected United States-sourced firm. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any representations from Ministers to make a statement on the

475
matter? If not, will those who are now on the Treasury Bench take note of what has been said and communicate it to their colleagues, because the matter is of concern in our area?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to hear of men and women losing their jobs, but it is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pay tribute, through you, to the parliamentary clerk in the Ministry of Agriculture, who has assisted Ministers in producing, throughout a very busy time, many outstanding answers to written questions that I have tabled. However, a number remain unanswered, and I would like to reinforce, through you, the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for an opportunity for all questions to be answered in advance of any Dissolution or recess.
Mr. Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is still in his place. My experience is exactly the same: I had many priority written questions on matters of great importance to my constituents, relating to foot and mouth disease, down for answer before the recess. A week after the recess, I have still received only holding answers to all those questions. Is there anything that I can do to encourage the Ministry to give my constituents the information that they so desperately need?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the Minister has taken note of the concerns of both hon. Gentlemen.
Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the entire crisis we have not had
476
a full day's debate in Government time on foot and mouth. We have had several statements but, Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed that today a considerable number of Conservative Members wished to ask a question when the statement came to an end. May I ask you to use your usual understanding so that, should we have another statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, you will give preference to those unable to ask a question today?
Mr. Speaker: I heard some mutterings and it is understandable that those who were not called are disappointed. However, on several occasions, I have asked the Minister to come to the House to make a statement and, indeed, have kept him at the Dispatch Box for over an hour and a half. Today he was here for well over an hour, and I must give some consideration to other business before the House. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point, I assure him that notes are taken and those who were not called today and were disappointed will not he disappointed next time.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take the matter a step further? You will recall that before the recess, I pointed out that the Prime Minister himself had indicated that he was taking personal charge of the foot and mouth crisis because it went across all Departments. Indeed, from the answers given by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon it is apparent that a number of issues are the responsibility of other Departments. Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, that you could make representations to ensure that the Prime Minister himself came to the House, not for a debate which, frankly, would be of lesser use, but simply to answer the questions that some of us want to ask about interdepartmental responsibilities?
Mr. Speaker: Those matters are not for me, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, I am sure that someone will take note of what he has said.

Orders of the Day
  Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

    New Clause 1
    PROVISION OF MOBILITY AND INDEPENDENCE EDUCATION
    'In the 1996 Act insert the following section—
    "324A Provision of mobility and independence education

    (1) An assessment of the educational needs of a child with visual impairment or multi-sensory impairment under section 323 or section 331 must include an assessment of their mobility and independence needs.

    (2) Where a local education authority makes a statement of special educational needs for a child with visual impairment or multi-sensory impairment under section 324 or section 331, any needs for mobility and independence education shall be specified as special educational provision in the child's statement.".'.—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    2.31 pm
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The new clause is meant as a probing amendment, which the Royal National Institute for the Blind and Sense were keen to have debated on Report. They want to highlight the need for mobility and independence education for visually impaired and multi-sensory impaired children to be treated as, I underline, a special educational provision, which must be provided by local education authorities if specified in a statement, rather than as a form of non-educational provision that LEAs may arrange. The RNIB and Sense want the revised code of practice on special educational needs to set out clearly that important principle.
    Visually impaired children and children with multi-sensory impairment experience huge problems getting around safely and confidently and, more generally, in understanding and negotiating their environment. Aspects of self-care, such as grooming, dressing and cooking, may present huge challenges. Addressing those needs is an essential part of the children's education and must start from the earliest possible age to maximise future independence. The new clause therefore refers to section 331 of the Education Act 1996, which deals with the assessment of the under-twos. Even at that young age, children need to be encouraged and motivated to explore their immediate environment safely and to move around it confidently.
    Mobility and independence education is fundamental to visually impaired and multi-sensory impaired children's access to education. Put simply, if children cannot find their way around their classroom or school safely and confidently, and if they are not given the practical skills that they need to move around safely in the playground and participate fully in physical education and drama classes, they cannot be said to be included. Furthermore, if children are denied the opportunity to learn self-care skills such as dressing and grooming, they cannot be said to be receiving an education appropriate to their needs.
    478
    Training for that involves a specialist mobility teacher acting as programme planner, staff trainer and adviser—the child's teachers and support workers must be closely involved—as well as direct training.
    The latest RNIB research, detailed in "Shaping the Future", which was published in 2000, shows that nearly two in three pupils attending specialist schools for blind and partially sighted pupils have received mobility education, but that fewer than one in three visually impaired pupils in mainstream schools have received mobility and independence education. One in 20 16 to 25-year-olds of average learning ability have no mobility education, but would have liked to have had it. Moreover, when such education is provided, there is evidence that it is treated as a marginal element of the curriculum, which is not in the spirit of the commitment of the Department for Education and Employment to fully inclusive education. Only three out of 117 pupils who had had mobility education had it built into their timetables.
    As a result, one in three mainstream secondary pupils said that they felt left out of some classroom activities; more than one in four said that there were school clubs and activities in which they would have liked to participate, but had not done so, and of that proportion one in six said that that was due to their sight difficulty. Moreover, lack of mobility education was found to be one reason why blind and partially sighted children and young people are less likely than their sighted peers to travel independently and confidently. Lack of self-confidence in travelling was an issue for six in 10 primary school pupils, more than one in three secondary school pupils and four in 10 16 to 25-year-olds.
    As well as training starting at an early age, it is vital that children receive it consistently and for as long as they need it to prepare for adult independence. Tackling those problems is central to the Government's goal of ensuring that inclusion in mainstream education is a more realistic and effective option for children with sensory impairment. As things stand, mainstream placements are clearly not delivering mobility and independence education consistently or effectively to sensorily impaired children.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: I am attracted to my hon. Friend's proposal, but it would be nice to think that it was not necessary. Does he agree that independence education of sensorily impaired children is necessary, but that there must also be greater awareness among their peers about how to relate to them? It should be possible to extend the proposal to include the peers and classmates of children with sensory impairments.
    Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, specialist teachers, to whom I referred earlier, and who maintain close contact with teachers and others in the classroom, should try to ensure that the whole class and school appreciate the tremendous problems of sensorily impaired children. I experienced those problems a week or so ago in Westminster Hall, when I had a brief go with a blindfold and a guide dog.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I hope that it was not mine.
    Mr. Griffiths: I assure my right hon. Friend that it was not.

    479
    That certainly brought home to me how disabling lack of sight and partial sight can be. I believe in the participation of the whole class and school.
    Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman's argument is persuasive and I believe that his new clause is reasonable. Has he or the organisations to which he spoke made any financial assessment of the impact on the DFEE of introducing such a provision?
    Mr. Griffiths: I do not have such information, although I understand that it is available. I do not believe that the provision would be a great financial burden. I shall refer later, without specifying figures, to matters in Wales which show that the commitment would not account for a huge part of the education budget. The costs involved would be offset by the huge benefits that would be gained for partially sighted and sensorily impaired children.
    Part of the problem is that mobility and independence needs are frequently not specified as special educational needs in part 2 of the statement, and consequently are not identified as educational provision that the LEA considers it necessary to make under part 3 of the statement. Instead, special educational needs may be included in part 5 of the statement, which deals with non-educational needs, and in part 6, as the non-educational provision agreed between the LEA and health and social services.
    LEAs have a duty to arrange the special educational provision specified in part 3 of a statement, and parents have a right of appeal to the tribunal if they disagree with the description of needs, the provision or any plans to stop making the provision by ceasing to maintain the statement. However, none of that applies if mobility and independence training are included in parts 5 and 6 as non-educational provision. LEAs simply have the power to arrange provision. The RNIB considers that a significant factor in explaining why so many children are not gaining access to the training that they require.
    Recognising mobility and independence training as educational needs within the statutory assessment and statementing process would provide LEAs with the necessary incentive to ensure that what is specified in the statement is carried out. If mobility and independence training becomes part of the specified provision, it will be possible for children who are visually impaired or have multi-sensory impairments to receive, under the statement, properly specified, the help that they need through mobility and independence education.
    As I said, such training is fundamental to allow the children to play a full and proper part in their school. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will respond positively to the issues that I have raised, and that when the special educational needs code of practice is published it will take account of those needs.
    I should be interested to know what other plans for action the Department has to meet the needs of children with visual and multi-sensory impairments so that they can participate fully in the schools that they attend, particularly when those are mainstream schools, in accordance with the Government's aim to make inclusion a reality for those children and their families.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Not for the first time, as we know from having heard his contributions in the
    480
    Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has performed a service by raising issues sensitively and with a good deal of perception. I agreed with a good deal of what he said, and it is right that Ministers should respond to it—although in view of the load of business that we have this afternoon, we will all have to keep our remarks as short as possible.
    I share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend and have had many of the same experiences. I, too, had a trial run with a guide dog, and found that interesting. At the edge of my constituency is the centre for dogs for the disabled. Those people do not necessarily have sensory impairment, although they may have various impairments. I have been able, through the work of the centre, to see the great skill required to train the dogs, and then the users of the dogs, to make the best of that partnership.
    2.45 pm
    I shall summarise the points set out by the hon. Gentleman. The first, to which we refer in other new clauses, is the importance of the setting in which any mainstream education is to be delivered, and the importance of induction and training for all the participants—that is, the pupil, the teachers and, as was mentioned in an intervention, the other pupils, so that the best is made of the situation and nothing creates a difficulty.
    Secondly, a continuing motif of our debates has been our concern about the comparatively low overall attainments of children with special educational needs, in terms of their final outcomes. We need not dissect that in detail today, and I certainly do not want to give the House the signal that we expect children with one or other special educational need necessarily to do badly in their school, particularly if they have a sensory impairment. Indeed—this is the last time that I shall mention it—the Secretary of State gives the most eloquent possible lie to that.
    It is essential that every child should be able to perform to the best of his or her ability, and that any difficulties are effectively overcome. That is the entirely proper motive for the new clause. There must be concern, especially in what may be termed straightforward cases of sensory impairment—blindness or deafness—that those give rise to underperformance, which should not have happened.
    The third point, which the hon. Member for Bridgend was right to raise, is the importance of a holistic approach. It is not simply a matter of putting children into the classroom, telling them that they are now included and part of the mainstream, and expecting them, the school, the other pupils or anyone else simply to get on with it. All the various aspects must be brought together. As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, the new clause brings together the special provision of an educational nature that is specified in the statement, and the other things that an LEA may do to support the child.
    There is a detectable functional distinction between those two categories, which hinges on what is or is not educational. An analogous case is the fraught issue of what is nursing care and what is support or personal care in residential care or nursing homes. We will get into difficulties if we seek to draw absolute distinctions between categories, especially where, by implication,

    481
    the funding streams are different. We do not have an immediate answer to those problems, and we need to focus rather more on finding our way through them.
    If Ministers tell the House that that is all secured under present arrangements, we will be reassured, but we will retain a degree of scepticism, as does the RNIB, about whether that is the case in practice. We should explore the issues in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman moved the new clause, as a probing measure, and listen carefully to the ministerial response. The problem deserves attention and will not go away.
    Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) emphasised the fact that the new clause raises issues that we may have overlooked in Committee. The intervention by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) highlighted the importance of ensuring that the needs of pupils with a severe sensory loss are taken into account in the wider school environment and among other pupils. That is essential.
    In the spirit of the new clause, which is meant as a probing amendment, the key point is for the Under-Secretary to reassure those who believe that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has raised an important matter that our concerns are encompassed in the Bill or in some other way. It would be helpful if such clarification were put on the record. Will she also comment on the difficulty and additional ties that the new clause would create for local education authorities, the Department for Education and Employment and local schools?
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I omitted to mention what the RNIB said about Wales, which is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It believes that two or three centres could be established in Wales to provide a service to all local authorities. Obviously, not every local authority would have the expertise that is necessary to make the provision. The scale of the proposal in terms of Welsh local authorities would be extremely small.
    Mr. George: I am grateful for that helpful clarification of the extra dimension in Wales.
    The Liberal Democrats support the spirit and purpose of the new clause and we look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary's response.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has given us to discuss a crucial issue. The new clause deals with a matter that is of concern to many families with children who have a visual or multi-sensory impairment: the training that such children receive to enhance their mobility and independence.
    All hon. Members accept that it is vital for children with a visual or multi-sensory impairment to learn how to get around independently and safely in the school or institution in which they are undertaking their learning. Without those basic skills, visually impaired children will not enjoy properly inclusive education and will be excluded from society as adults. If visually impaired
    482
    children are not taught the basic life skills that make for independence, they will be excluded from life at school and from society as adults.
    Mr. Boswell: The Under-Secretary has made an excellent start to her speech, but does she agree that even if skills training is not given in school, it will still be required somewhere and will have to be given outside that setting? It might as well be done in the most appropriate place.
    Ms Hodge: That training needs to be provided in the most appropriate place and by the most appropriate people. Perhaps that will become clearer as I develop my remarks. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, the purpose of the Bill is to equalise opportunities, so facilities for visually and sensorily impaired children are integral to it.
    As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend acknowledged, a range of agencies are involved in providing support for the children to whom the Bill relates. I pay tribute to the active and helpful role of Sense and the RNIB, both of which I meet frequently, and of others in promoting mobility and independence. Those organisations have worked effectively with local education authorities throughout the country to provide training where it is needed.
    LEAs do and must work in partnership with health authorities, social services departments and voluntary organisations to ensure that children get appropriate support and training. As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) acknowledged, not all the services will be funded through LEAs. The way in which a service is funded and the agency that is selected to provide it will depend on the individual circumstances and needs of the child in question.
    I hope to give some reassurances to all hon. Members who have participated in this short debate. LEAs are required to specify in a child's statement the special educational provision that is necessary to meet his or her special educational needs. They are also required to set out the non-educational needs of the child and the provision that is needed if he or she is properly to benefit from that provision. Indeed, the non-educational provision that is necessary to enable the child to benefit from his or her education provision can also be specified in the statement. That can encompass all needs, including those that relate to mobility and independence.
    Our current code of practice and framework for special educational needs are somewhat different from what is suggested by the new clause, which would require LEAs by law specifically to assess mobility and independence as part of the statutory assessment of every child with visual or multi-sensory impairment. It would also require them to specify as educational provision in their statements the provision of mobility and independence training. I am not sure that such legislation is either necessary or appropriate.
    As I hope that I have demonstrated, the current SEN framework allows for the holistic approach that we all acknowledge to be necessary for the children. It allows for the consultation of specialist teachers in appropriate individual circumstances when a child's special educational needs are assessed—a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. When we

    483
    establish our policies, we will require a framework that encourages all the agencies that have a role to work together.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I accept everything that my hon. Friend says, but let me point out the problem that is apparent from research and surveys carried out by the RNIB. Although children get the help and support that they need in specialist schools, such support is not always available in mainstream schools because of the different standing of such provision within the statement. Will she assure us that the new code of practice will ensure equality of treatment? That would be very encouraging.
    Ms Hodge: I acknowledge that the standard of current provision is not as high as we want it to he, and that it is not as integrated as we want it to be. I hope that my assurances about the steps that we are taking will show my hon. Friend that we are genuinely trying to achieve the aims to which he and the organisations in whose name he makes his representations aspire.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is important for us to establish a framework that facilitates, encourages and demands multi-agency working, rather than one that allows some of the agencies to opt out of their responsibilities in respect of dealing with the children's needs. As the new clause deliberately specifies the obligations in terms of the LEA, it might enable social services and health departments to opt out of their legitimate responsibilities in that regard.
    Mr. Boswell: Those are helpful remarks, but I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary can secure her intentions in the Bill. Does she at least agree that it is incumbent on all agencies, whether they are specifically educational or not, and whether they are national or local, to collaborate and exchange information so that the overall holistic solution can emerge? I understand her point about not shifting their responsibilities away, but one of those responsibilities must be to work with other agencies in order to achieve the right outcome.
    3 pm
    Ms Hodge: I accept that those responsibilities must be shared and that collaboration must occur. One of the challenges that we face in trying to provide and improve services is finding methods of enhancing collaboration, thus ensuring that the needs of the child are central, and replacing traditional attitudes and practices, which tended to leave people in funnels. We want to encourage work across the professions.
    The current SEN framework allows a holistic approach to need. We must ensure that it is appropriate to the needs of every child, and acknowledge that they may differ. The new clause would constrain our response to shifting the burden on to one authority. That may be inappropriate for some children, who may require more input from social services or health departments on mobility, independence or other needs. The disability provisions will ensure that every school makes reasonable adjustments to its policies, practices and procedures, and to access to the curriculum and the building. That will ensure that all children, including those with visual impairments and sensory impairments, are fully included in the life of the school.
    484
    I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend made about low incidence impairments. We want to take advantage of the experience and expertise of specialists, yet enable children to be taught in mainstream schools in their locality when possible. The new clause shows that there is much work to be done and I do not pretend that we have achieved our aim yet. As my hon. Friend said, we need to spread the best practice of specialist schools in mainstream schools.
    The aim of many of the SEN and social inclusion policies of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with responsibility for school standards is to fund, through SEN regional partnerships and the SEN small programmes fund, mechanisms that will enhance the capacity for specialist schools to pass on their knowledge, experience and expertise to the mainstream sector. I am delighted that we have been able to increase so substantially the money that we are putting into the standards fund, which will support the training of teachers in mainstream schools and others to deal with impairments, especially low incidence impairments.
    We need to do much more on early identification and intervention. We spent much time in Committee, as did another place, on that subject. If we can improve that, we will ensure that children can develop their full potential and live a more inclusive life. We are therefore investing a large sum of money in special educational needs in the early years, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Second Reading. We have also announced the establishment of a multi-agency working group to develop guidance on identifying the special needs of children under two so that necessary provision can be made for them at the earliest opportunity.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend raised another issue, about which I share his anxiety. We need to try to ensure greater consistency in provision throughout the country, especially for low incidence impairment. We have therefore issued our consultation document on quality standards in education for children and young people with visual impairments. As hon. Members know, it is designed to secure the right sort of services to help pupils to be independent learners. We refer specifically to the need to ensure support for mobility training when needed. We await the final comments from the consultation exercise, and we shall then distribute a final version to local authorities. I hope that we can use the document to ensure greater consistency across the country.
    Multi-agency working is the key to ensuring a holistic approach. Several Government initiatives will support that. From sure start to the Bill, our policies will provide a framework based on the needs of the child rather than the interests of the professionals.
    Clearly, we need to continue to seek improvements in our response to the specific needs of children with visual impairments and other sensory impairments. Together with the RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind and Opsis, we are funding a one-year research project, which considers the mobility and independence needs of children and young people from two to 16 and the training needs of those who work with them. That research will help inform future policy decisions, and we shall keep the issue under review.

    485
    I hope that I have been able to persuade my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause, and that we can proceed with introducing the much-needed Bill.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for her response to the new clause, which, as I said earlier, is a probing motion. I did not intend all responsibility to fall on the local education authority, but I wanted the special provision that we are considering to be equal to other special education provision. The disability provisions, the aim of equal treatment and the research project, to which my hon. Friend referred, will help. I am therefore happy that the Department, in conjunction with the many agencies and voluntary bodies, is dealing with the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

  NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CHILD
  'The Secretary of State shall, in exercising his powers under the 1996 Act with respect to the education of children with special educational needs, take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that provision by bodies in receipt of public funds for meeting those needs should treat the needs of the individual child as paramount so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient education for other children:.—[Mrs. May.]
  Brought up, and read the First time
  Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out "efficient" and insert "effective".
  Mrs. May: I am conscious that the principle that underpins new clause 2 is not unfamiliar to those who have followed the Bill through its various stages in another place and in the House. It deals with the emphasis that the Bill should place on the needs of the individual child in the context of special educational needs provision.
  The matter was raised in another place, on Second Reading and in Committee, where the details of the measure were thoughtfully and thoroughly debated. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who have worked hard to try to ensure that the measure works in the interests of children with special educational needs and disabled children.
  New clause 2 would put the needs of individual children with special educational needs and those of individual disabled children at the heart of the measure. We have discussed the principle previously, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), will respond positively today. If members of the public were asked what should be paramount in determining provision for special needs children, their reply would undoubtedly be the needs of the child. That is common sense. They might also mention other aspects, which the Bill covers, such as parental choice about the provision for their children or ensuring that the child's
  486
  education was provided efficiently and did not damage that of other children. Those needs must be balanced when making a decision about one child.
  Although I believe that most people would say that it was common sense for the child's needs to be the first consideration, the Government have thus far been unwilling to include that principle in the Bill.
  New clause 2 proposes that a duty be given to the Secretary of State to ensure that, when consideration is given to the provision of education to a child with special educational needs, the needs of the child should be paramount in that consideration. Two arguments have been raised by the Government about why the needs of the child should not be incorporated in the Bill, and should not be the prime consideration. The first is that it is unnecessary because the needs of the child are already provided for in legislation in a variety of ways; the second is that it would be a mistake because experience has shown that if the needs of the child are put first, that can be used by the various bodies involved to argue, in a counter-productive way, that the child should not, for example, be in a mainstream school. That second argument is the one raised most often.
  The Under-Secretary wrote a helpful letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry on 24 April, setting out various aspects of existing legislation that the Government say safeguard and protect children with special educational needs. The Minister wrote that under section 7 of the Education Act 1996 parents have a duty to ensure that their children receive full-time education that is suitable to their age and any special educational needs.
  The hon. Lady also pointed out that section 9 of the Act sets out the need to ensure that parents have a choice, and that schedule 27 of the Act ensures that the individual needs of the child are taken into account in deciding whether to name a parent's choice of maintained school in a statement. Those provisions refer to the needs of the child, but they do not put the needs of the child at the heart of the decision as to the sort of education with which the child should be provided, be it in a maintained school or a special school. That is my concern.
  The Government's reliance on those existing provisions is a very convoluted way of approaching a simple, common-sense issue that could easily be incorporated in the Bill so that everyone making decisions about where a child with special educational needs should be educated would know that the paramount consideration should be for the needs of the child. That is important because, sadly, today the needs of the child are being put to one side in relation not only to the ability of children to enter mainstream education, but, in a reverse sense, sometimes through attempts to ensure that children are not provided for in special schools. The legislation on which the Minister is relying represents a convoluted way of dealing with this issue. We have an opportunity to take a simple approach, and to state in the Bill that the needs of the child are what matter. Let us put that up front, accept it and say that that is where the focus should be in any decisions that are taken.
  I mentioned earlier that the second argument against making the needs of the child paramount, and including that in the Bill, was that experience showed that if the child's needs were put first, various bodies involved could use that requirement counter-productively. Indeed, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Kingswood

  487
  (Mr. Berry) referred to local education authorities that had used the argument about the needs of the child to prevent certain children from going into mainstream education, saying that a place in a special school was more appropriate.
  It is a bad principle to use examples of where putting the child's needs first has acted against the child's needs as a reason for not incorporating such a provision in the Bill. That is an argument for examining how local authorities are interpreting the needs of the child, and putting those principles into practice, rather than for leaving the needs of the child off the Bill. My fear is that the kind of situation to which the hon. Member for Kingswood referred could be exacerbated if there were no provision in the Bill to ensure that, when considering such decisions, the needs of the child must be centrally placed and paramount.
  I am worried not only about circumstances in which, without this provision, a child could be prevented by a local authority from going into mainstream education. Given that the Bill emphasises two considerations—parental wishes and the provision of efficient education within the recipient school—a situation could arise in which parents were worried about the prospect of their child going into mainstream education and were naturally fearful of the child not being in a special school. The mainstream school in question may argue that there might be some difficulties involved in teaching the child, despite the fact that the needs of the child would clearly be best met by being in that school. If that third consideration of the individual needs of the child, that balancing item, were not in the Bill, it would be all too easy in those circumstances for that child to be prevented from having a place in the mainstream school simply because we had not accepted the importance of those needs.
  3.15 pm
  These arguments can act in another way, too. I am conscious of the problems faced by a number of special schools. They have considerable expertise in providing for the needs of individual children in a way that mainstream schools are often unable to meet. So far in this debate, considerable emphasis has understandably been placed on the needs of children with disabilities. That is a central and very welcome part of the Bill that we support. However, special educational needs do not simply relate to children with disabilities.
  Many schools commenting on the issue of including children in mainstream education state that they have no difficulty with the principle, although there might be resource implications, for example, in accommodating a child who was a wheelchair user. However, those schools are concerned about children with emotional and behavioural difficulties who can cause real disruption and damage to the education of other children.
  That is why it is so sad to see what is happening to schools such as Oldfield House school in Twickenham, which I visited yesterday. It is a special school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties which is under threat of closure by the local authority. The school has had very few children referred to it, and the local authority has been running down the number of statements and referrals that it has been making to it.
  488
  The head teacher made the point that the school had a group of teachers with expertise in dealing with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, and if its children were placed in mainstream schools, there would be an impact on the rest of the children in the classes, and the teachers in the mainstream schools would find it very difficult to cope with them. Furthermore, the needs of the children with emotional and behavioural difficulties would not be met. They might be physically included in the class, but in many other ways they would be excluded from the educational provision of the school.
  In considering where a child with special educational needs, of whatever sort, can best be educated, it is important that the wishes of parents and the efficient provision of education should be considered, and the Bill rightly makes provision for those considerations. However, it is also simple common sense and in the best interests of children to ensure that their needs should be placed at the heart of the Bill. Their needs drive the Bill, and their needs drive our intention to provide the best possible education for them. We should recognise that in the Bill, and new clause 2 aims to provide that recognition.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the needs of the child being paramount. It is rather surprising that we have had to table this new clause. One would assume that, as the Government have said how important it is to introduce the Bill to help children with special educational needs and disabilities, such a provision would not be missing from it. The children about whom we are talking are the very children whom the Bill is supposedly designed to help.
  I know that there is probably general support for the Bill's principles, but I have a little difficulty with it because of experiences that I have had in my constituency. I do not want to take up too much of the House's time in going over the ground that I covered on Second Reading and in Committee, but I have some concerns about what is happening in special educational needs at the moment.
  I accept that many children with SEN can be included in mainstream schools. Many already are, including children in my constituency. In Gloucestershire, however, the Labour party and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats on the county council seem determined to challenge the need for so many special schools, and even to embark on a programme to close such schools. As I have said in the House before, a school in Stroud, Bownham Park—it is not actually in my constituency—is scheduled for closure. We are challenging the decision, because it is felt that if that school is closed a number of other schools in Gloucestershire will also be closed, which would reduce the amount of SEN provision in the county.
  Although it is possible to provide special education in mainstream schools, it is important for a number of special schools to be available for children to attend if that is their wish and the wish of their parents. I have already accepted that many children can go to mainstream schools even if they have special needs, and that many do; but if children, or their parents, decide that education in special schools is really necessary, the facility should be provided.
  What is surely of overriding importance—what must matter more than any fine theories that we may propound here, and more than any political dogma or political

  489
  correctness—is that each child should be assessed on the basis of what he or she needs, and that the child is offered education that will suit those individual requirements.
  Many children at special schools are currently feeling rather challenged. They sense that their schools are under threat, and fear that their voices are not being listened to. There is a great movement towards inclusion, which is justified in many instances; but many children are frightened by the Bill. They are frightened by the prospect of their schools' being closed as a result of political correctness or party dogma, and they want people to listen to them.
  Last month, I welcomed a delegation from Alderman Knight school, in my constituency, to the House of Commons. One girl who knew that she had special educational needs spoke to the meeting, very bravely. She came out with a phrase that I will never forget for as long as I am elected to this place: she said that no one was listening to her.
  Surely politicians in all parties have a duty to listen to what is said by those whom we are supposed to be trying to help. I support the new clause because I fear that we are not listening to expressions of concern from individual pupils with special educational needs.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: New clause 2, which I support, deals with the challenging tightrope that the Bill attempts to walk. On the one hand there is the commendable and correct principle of including children with special needs, in order to further their integration in society and help them to develop as fully as possible. No one argues with that. On the other, there is the reality: it may be in the best interests of both child and school for some SEN children to be educated in schools that focus specifically on their needs. I consider it essential for what the new clause describes as the "best interests of the child" to be enshrined in the Bill.
  I spoke to a number of teachers in my constituency this week, in order to be briefed on their views and those of their schools about the new clause and the Bill in general. They expressed concern—this is their opinion, not mine—that the Bill might force children into mainstream schools when that would be manifestly unsuitable owing to their needs. A clause ensuring that the best interest of the child was always a priority would be invaluable.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman said that the phrase "best interests of the child" was in the new clause. I cannot find it there. There is a distinction to be drawn between the needs of a child and the best interests of that child.
  Mr. Leigh: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I should have thought that a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to
  "ensure that provision by bodies in receipt of public funds for meeting those needs should treat the needs of the individual child as paramount"
  was using language denoting "the best interests of the child". The hon. Gentleman's point strikes me as being merely semantic, but he has his own view, and he is entitled to make his own speech in his own way.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: It might be helpful if the Liberal Democrats told us whether they would
  490
  support the new clause if it included the alternative wording which, as my hon. Friend says, is similar to what is there now.
  Mr. Leigh: No doubt we shall discover the Liberal Democrats' view later, but I do not think that we should trade debating points. We are discussing a serious issue. Whether we refer to the best interests or the paramount interests of a child—I do not mind what we call it—we are talking about people with severe difficulties. Let us put them first.
  Mr. Levitt: At every stage, Ministers and those of us who support the Bill in its entirety have made it clear that the Bill not only provides a framework for the successful integration of children with special needs in mainstream education, but strengthens parents' right to make informed choices about where their children are educated. Can the hon. Gentleman give us any evidence—apart from hearsay, originating from people who may not yet be familiar with the Bill—to demonstrate that the Bill will not achieve what it sets out to achieve?
  Mr. Leigh: If it is indeed true that those who have framed the Bill are determined to give parents freedom of choice, I do not see why they should be concerned about the admirable wording of the new clause. We have not yet heard from the Minister, who, of course, may accept it. The new clause simply suggests that the Secretary of State should treat
  "the needs of the individual child as paramount".
  I said that I wanted to relay the views of teachers in my constituency. I think that their views are worth hearing. A connected issue, which teachers constantly mention to me, is the provision of special schools. Teachers say that the initiative to encourage more children into mainstream schools—with which, in principle, everyone is quite happy—carries the danger that more and more special schools will be closed down. That point was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson).
  Ofsted put the rate of closure of special schools at 30 per cent. last year. If that continues—this directly answers the question asked by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt)—parents will have little choice in regard to where they send their children. It is a mockery of the notion of choice to say that parents can decide at the statement stage of discussions with the local education authority to put that child in a special school—which may be the best solution for the child—and then be told that the nearest special school is miles away, or has just been closed. That is the point that we are trying to make in the new clause, and that is why we must ensure that the child's interests are paramount.
  Miss Anne Begg: I think every Labour Member accepts, and has reiterated throughout debate on the Bill, that nothing in the Bill will stop the special education of children who cannot be integrated in mainstream schools. The hon. Gentleman, however, refers to the distance that a child may have to travel to find a special school. That is why it is so important for smaller units in mainstream schools, or attached to them, to deal with children who have severe disabilities, enabling them to be closer to their homes. The children will not be in special schools; they will be in mainstream schools,

  491
  but those schools will have special provision for them. That may be to their advantage, because they will be close to home rather than having to live in dormitories hundreds of miles away.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point. I am delighted by the intervention, because it leads me straight to a point about the funding of mainstream schools.
  Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I will, although I am trying to reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg).
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Levitt: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that all special schools are the same. Even when there were more special schools than there are now, if a child needed a particular type of special school—say one that specialised in the education of autistic children—parents might have had to travel a long way and pass several other special schools. The hon. Gentleman also misses the point that many special schools were closed under the previous Government and 13 have opened in recent months under this Government.
  Mr. Leigh: I take the point that in the past children may have had to travel long distances to special schools. That is why nobody is arguing in principle with the thinking behind the Bill that it is good to try to encourage children into mainstream schools, if they are nearby, funding is available and the right education and care can be given. However, it must be done properly and that is why we need some serious arguments from the Government about why new clause 2 is not acceptable.
  Dr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the wishes of the parents or the needs of the child should be paramount, because both cannot be?
  Mr. Leigh: That is a debating point. The reality is that discussions will take place at the statement stage and the course of action that is in the best interests of the child will become apparent to the parents. After all, few parents go out of their way not to put the interests of their child first.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend mentioned the need to travel long distances to special schools. Will he speculate why parents and children might be prepared to travel those distances? Could it be the special treatment and care that children get at those schools? Parents and children often have to travel at their own expense, but they consider it to be well worth it.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point, and I know that my hon. Friend also represents a rural constituency. In fact, there is a special school in Gainsborough. My constituency is geographically the same size as Greater London, which has 73 constituencies, but parents will travel many miles to that school because they believe that it meets the special needs of their children.
  492
  The fundamental issue is funding. Teachers in my constituency are, on the whole, extremely sceptical about the promised funding from the Government to implement the admittedly desirable objectives of the Bill. Teachers do not think that they will receive enough funding to meet all the extra demands placed on their schools by the policy of inclusion, and nor are they impressed by the training on offer to equip teachers to cope. The Bill needs to be covered by adequate funding if it is to work and our children are to get the best possible education.
  If funding is inadequate, the law will be made to look an ass. Schools will refuse to take on more SEN children because they cannot afford to financially; or because it would push the school over the edge of teachability, as one head teacher in my constituency fears; or because schools would be unable to cope with children with special educational needs, who would be far worse off than if they had stayed in their special schools.
  Paul Strong is the head teacher of a large, successful comprehensive school in my constituency. It has come high up the league tables and recently, with my help and that of others, has acquired a sixth form. Mr. Strong has said:
  "there are some children for whom mainstream education may be manifestly unsuited"—
  and he thinks that it would be bad for their dignity to put them in such education. He wants to ensure that it is in the interests of the child to come to his school, and that should be put above the Government's commitment to inclusion. He is happy to receive children with special educational needs, provided that the funding is available and it is in the interests of the children. Another teacher has given the example of a child with Asperger's syndrome who finds it difficult to be with large numbers of other children. Clearly it would not be in the best interests of that child to be included in mainstream education.
  I have received a letter from a teacher who specialises in teaching those children with special educational needs. She says:
  "Special Schools have historically catered for one type, or possibly two or more similar types, of SEN: Autism, sight impairment, hearing impairment, physical disability … In those schools, class sizes range from 6 or fewer, to 12, or at most 15 where the needs are not too severe. The teachers are supported by 1:1 SSA's where appropriate, as well as by a trained classroom assistant. The particular needs of the children are met by fully qualified staff, so that, for instance, Physio's and OT's are closely involved with developing and monitoring programmes for children with mobility problems, Speech Therapists work regularly with children with speech and language or hearing difficulties, and psychologists and behaviour therapists have counselling roles with disturbed children. The teachers themselves benefit from training specifically for meeting the needs of the children they are working with, and from a complex support structure within their schools. Life skills are a feature of every child's IER and are given appropriate space in their educational day. Furthermore, the school buildings are adapted and modified to accommodate the needs of the children they serve, and they have the resources and equipment necessary for the children's full educational and pastoral needs.
  By contrast, Mainstream schools have classes of 30 children, regardless of the range of need within those classes. One teacher may be supported for some, and in Early Years possibly all, of each day.
  However, every school can now expect to be obliged to accept children with any type of SEN, and be required to provide as best it can for their varying needs. Buildings may not be appropriate, resources and equipment may not be available, and staff may have

  493
  no training, expertise or understanding of how best to support the children whose parents have opted for Inclusion, but that seems to matter little to those who are promoting this policy."
  Those are not the words of a politician or the head teacher of a comprehensive school, but of a teacher who has dedicated her life to teaching children with special educational needs. She has a right to have her view heard by the House, otherwise we could deal a serious blow to the happiness and education of some of the most vulnerable children in our society. The views of such teachers should not be brushed aside by the House.
  The Government must give assurances that they will not water down the specificity of the statements that are given to children. The Government backed down in the Lords and now refuse to say when they will issue the code of practice that will outline the rules. Those rules must not be watered down to obscure the funding that a child deserves. Parents must be able to see clearly their child's entitlement and what they can claim from the local education authority.
  Another school in my constituency is undersubscribed and has been struggling to attract pupils, for various reasons that are not the fault of the school. I must make it clear that it is a different school from the one I mentioned earlier—William Farr school—which is a highly successful and oversubscribed school. The head teacher of the less successful school told me that inclusion was a very good principle and was necessary for the good of society, but he also said that his school could not take any more SEN children. More money would not help him because he cannot employ staff as it is. He spoke of a vicious cycle in his school in which more SEN children means standards and behaviour declining, which means good pupils and teachers leaving—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): That is outrageous.
  Mr. Leigh: Labour Members may not like that, but they must listen to the reality of the education world. We cannot frame legislation simply on the basis of good intentions. I am reporting the views of a head teacher of a comprehensive school in this country and he says that good pupils are leaving, making mere spaces for SEN children and so the cycle continues. Some comprehensive schools could be pushed further into unpopularity.
  Mr. Levitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regard this comment as helpful. If what we have heard is a genuine description of what is happening in two of his schools, I recommend that he invite Ofsted to look at the situation immediately.
  Mr. Leigh: That, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying so, is a rather silly point. A very successful, oversubscribed school is, in principle, prepared to have more children but it needs the funding to do so, while the head teacher of another school is doing his best in a difficult situation but could be pushed into taking action that would make the school unpopular. It is a vicious cycle. These people must be listened to; it may be difficult, but life is difficult.
  Miss Begg: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was quoting a head teacher. I am disturbed that head teachers
  494
  with such views are teaching in comprehensive schools. I was a special educational needs pupil and I was a teacher in a comprehensive school with special educational needs—my own. I find it incredibly insulting that there are some in the education system who make the assumption that because people have special educational needs or a disability they will cause a problem or be badly behaved. That is simply not true.
  Mr. Leigh: I am not saying that. I am simply trying to describe the real situation. Often we may not like the real world as we find it. However, the fact is that schools nowadays are competing with each other for pupils, competing for teachers in a very difficult job market and competing in the league tables.
  The head teacher I mentioned was not against the principle of the Bill—he is all in favour, in principle, of inclusion. He is simply saying that we should be careful, pause and not rush into a situation in which, in the real world, SEN children may be dumped into certain mainstream schools. [Interruption.] Yes, dumped. I have to use that word. It is no point Labour Members looking shocked. This sort of thing goes on, I am afraid. There is no point in framing legislation full of high ideals if, in the long run, children with special needs suffer.
  Mr. Roger Berry: The hon. Gentleman says that in the real world SEN children are dumped into mainstream schools. Will he advise the House which local education authorities behave in that way?
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has deliberately misrepresented what I said. I said that if the Bill is enacted, and if the interests of children are not paramount, that is what may happen. I am delighted that what I have said appears to have stirred up a hornets' nest on the Labour Benches. I have obviously touched a raw nerve. Many children receive first-rate education in special schools but there is a danger that if this process continues, they may not receive sufficiently good education.
  Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I do not want to delay the House but as the hon. Gentleman is anxious to intervene of course I will give way to him.
  Mr. Berry: The only reason that I intervened is because the hon. Gentleman referred to "the real world". His description is inconsistent with anything that any local education authority I have ever encountered would do. He talks about dumping children with special educational needs in mainstream schools as if that were the practice of local education authorities. If that is the case, he should either name the local education authorities concerned or apologise for what I regard as a deep slur on what the professionals are trying to do.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has altogether too thin a skin for this House.
  Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman is throwing insults around.
  Mr. Leigh: I am not. I am simply describing what may happen unless we are very careful. I am perfectly entitled to articulate my point of view, and I will not be bullied into taking it back.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend has told us happens at the sharp end.

  495
  Labour Members are forgetting that it is no longer LEAs that choose which schools children go to but parents. That is where the problem arises. If there is an imbalance in the number of children of a certain type at a certain School, that may impact on the school's success in attracting a broad range of children and therefore on its success as a school.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has summed up the situation much better than I could. That is what happens in real life, as I was trying to explain.
  I have already mentioned Paul Strong, the head teacher of William Fan. Another head teacher, Barry Tointon of Caistor Yarborough school, said that it was essential for adequate money to be provided. They both said that there was nothing that they could do to incorporate more SEN children into their schools without more money and more resources. They do not have any more money lying around to spend on more assistance. They both appreciate the benefits that can be gained but say that it is not possible to do it without the relevant support, funding and training for them and their teachers.
  Cherie Taylor, a new SEN co-ordinator in my constituency, said that training was very hard to come by but that she had been fortunate to get a course for a master's degree in the subject. She is in favour of inclusion but emphasises the need for funding.
  If the legislation is to be a success, the Government must ensure that sufficient resources are made available to prevent the law from becoming ineffective and damaging to children. The £70 million promised for 25,000 schools per year amounts to an extra £280 per school—hardly a lot of money. It is not enough for the inclusion of more SEN children.
  There is no point in the Government producing worthy legislation and putting more burdens on teachers and local authorities without providing the means to make the Bill work. The constant refrain of the teachers I have talked to is to give them the money and they will do their best to carry out these requirements in a difficult situation.
  Other fears voiced by SEN teachers include the widespread belief that the Bill does not allow or sufficiently encourage the communication and co-ordination that we have become accustomed to hearing about, but not seeing, in what is supposed to be joined-up government. They believe that there is a need for more communication between the many different agencies that may be involved in a single child's case. That would encourage them to share their information and expertise and to work for the holistic and rounded treatment of a child with SEN. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members agree with that point of view. Such co-ordination is also needed between the NHS and the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that there are enough staff to meet all the child's needs. For example, there may not be nearly enough occupational therapists or speech and language therapists to meet the demands of schools for their children with SEN.
  Let me make a point about regulation which also concerns the interests of the child. A teacher told me that he had been raising money for a stair lift over the past few years and had finally got the necessary funds through
  496
  voluntary fund raising, and so on. However, it was not allowed to be installed by the authorities because the stairwell was too narrow by less than 20 cm. The chair lift was deemed to be inappropriate and could not be installed for the use of children with special educational needs. The teacher made the point that children, in his experience, are well behaved and do not cause problems in other narrow stairwells. However, he was not allowed to put in the chair lift thanks to health and safety regulations.
  We need more common sense, fewer counter-productive regulations and more communication. We need to ensure that the best interests of the child are paramount. We need to ensure that special schools are not closed down, thus reducing choice, and that there is proper funding. There are the points that I have tried to make in my brief contribution and I hope that the Government will listen to them.
  Dr. Harris: We will be opposing new clause 2 for the reasons that we gave in Committee when discussing similar issues. I shall not rehearse them at length.
  We heard an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), as always. However, his undoubted passion and sincerity led him astray in certain areas. To argue that schools should not somehow be able to garner to them pupils with particular needs or aptitudes—in irrespective of whether that is a good or a bad thing for SEN children—is strange coming from a party that recommends selection by the schools themselves. By definition, that means that some schools do not have the opportunity to get the children that they want because they have been cherry-picked by other schools.
  The hon. Gentleman could have made the same analogy with regard to secondary moderns. In areas where there are grammar schools, they have a higher proportion of pupils from poorer backgrounds and poorer educational backgrounds who never get the life chances that are available in excellent comprehensive schools. By analogy, the hon. Gentleman is on dodgy ground, regardless of the merits of the point that he was making. On that, I share the views of those right hon. and hon. Members who intervened on him.
  Mr. John Hayes: I really cannot allow that attack on secondary modern schools to go unchallenged. Many secondary modern schools where grammar schools exist provide a first-class education. An example is the Gleed girls school in my constituency, which achieves better results than many comprehensive schools. I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman has had time to reflect on his ill judged remark, he will want to withdraw it.
  Dr. Harris: I am conscious that I am about to speak to amendment No. 1, but the evidence is clear that comprehensive education has delivered better standards than was delivered by the system of grammar schools and secondary moderns.
  Before I turn to amendment No. 1, I should say that Liberal Democrat Members oppose new clause 2, for reasons that we gave in Committee. I was somewhat shocked—although not surprised—to be accused by the hon. Member for Gainsborough of making a debating

  497
  point when I asked him to ensure that the terminology he used was appropriate. After all, this is a debating Chamber. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, but we made it clear there that it is important not to conflate expressions such as the "rights", "wishes", "needs" and "best interests" of children. Those expressions can refer to different things.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough that there are similarities between action taken to deliver the educational needs of children and action taken in their best interests, but the notion of "best interest" is always subjective. For example, if there is a conflict between doctors and parents over medical matters, it is often left to the courts to decide whether doctors pursued a child's best interests. In connection with education, the views of parents, local authorities and schools may well differ about what is in a child's best interests.
  My second point is that two separate criteria cannot be paramount. Both can be important and worthy of consideration, but my dictionary shows that the word "paramount" implies that one consideration must be placed above another.
  We accept assurances given in this House, in another place and in the letter sent to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that the Bill is designed to ensure that the educational needs of any child are met, particularly when those needs are special. However, within that general approach, the Bill stipulates that the wishes of parents should be paramount.
  In Committee, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said that the wishes of parents—invariably and by definition—were in the best interest of the child. I consider that that may not always be the case, but if one accepts that it is generally right to trust parents, the new clause introduces a conflict in that regard.
  Conservative Members say that they want there to be more respect for parental choice. Their belief—which I consider flawed—is that that can be delivered by allowing schools, rather than parents, to select. The language of the new clause is not consistent with that belief.
  Many members of the Standing Committee made two points, at length. The first was that a provision similar to the one contained in the new clause has been used to deny children places in mainstream schools when that would have been in their best interests. That is a historical fact and must be taken into account. The second is that most of the organisations that support the rights of children with special educational needs oppose the new clause and support the undertakings given by the Government.
  As I have said before, that in itself is not a sufficient argument for the rejection of the new clause, as it is the job of the House to question the Government regardless of what outside bodies say. However, a powerful impression is made when such bodies form a coalition to oppose a new clause such as this. I accept that the proposal is well intentioned, but it is critically flawed.
  Amendment No. 1 would substitute the word "effective" for "efficient" in the caveat contained in proposed new section 316(3)(b). As drafted, that new section states:
  "If a statement is maintained under section 324 for the child, he must be educated in a mainstream school … unless that is incompatible with … the provision of efficient education for other children."
  498
  I raised this matter in Committee, and we have tabled the amendment today because I did not get a satisfactory answer. Those seeking to make decisions on this matter will look at what the Minister said. There is a difference between "effective" and "efficient". To many people, the word "efficient" implies financial considerations that are not implied by the word "effective".
  Clearly, there is a duty to consider the delivery of effective education. For example—and the circumstances that I shall describe are much rarer than is often claimed—it may be impossible to deliver effective education to a child with special educational needs arising from challenging behaviour in class. By effective education, I mean the delivery of the curriculum in a safe way. However, it might be possible to deliver that education safely, but at an increased cost. By definition, the extra steps that would have to be taken in my example would render the delivery of education less efficient than it would otherwise have been. There is therefore some peril in the use of the word "efficient" which would be avoided by the use of the word "effective".
  Do the Government accept that there are significant funding restrictions on schools and local authorities? The Government always quote figures to show how much money is going into education, but those figures are pretty meaningless. As was discussed in Committee, who would not say that another £20 million would always make things better? The Minister must accept that an insistence on the word "efficient" will mean that some schools and local authorities may well say that they are suffering from the financial restrictions arising out of the unfair and undemocratic capping regime that the Government have retained.
  The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for example, waxed lyrical in Committee—and eloquent today—about the Gloucestershire local education authority. Authorities like that could well argue that lack of funding forces them to reject a mainstream place for a child with special educational needs, even though effective and safe education can still be delivered for other children.
  In Committee, I had to drag a response to that point out of the Minister. She said:
  "The term 'efficient education' is used throughout the Education Act, in, for example, schedule 27 and section 7. It is appropriate to use it here to ensure consistency."
  That is a circular argument, or even a Conservative one: how could the law ever be changed, given that a changed law would not be consistent with what went before? Amendment No. 2 was not selected for debate today, but it shows where the consequential amendments would have to be made to achieve a new consistency if the right thing were done and amendment No. 1 were accepted.
  The Minister's response in Standing Committee went on:
  "I have reassured the Committee on the extent to which we are putting extra resources into achieving inclusion and into the education system as a whole. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to expect LEAs to have regard for the efficient education of children, regardless of the fact that significant extra resources are being provided."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 March 2001; c. 69.]
  To me, that suggests that the Minister was being honest and accepting that it may not be possible for the Government to afford to make provision in a mainstream

  499
  school to provide effective and safe education for other children because of the cost of doing so. However, I draw to her attention the fact that, if cost is the issue, the cost of providing that education separately may be much higher than the cost of providing it in a mainstream school.
  Conservative Members ought to bear that in mind as well. I do not want to go into the merits of individual cases or of Conservative policy in general, but the Conservative proposal to ensure that there are more exclusions would have cost implications for any special units that are set up. Accountants would regard the proposal as a less efficient way to ensure delivery of education for children with special educational needs, even though it may be appropriate for the effective and safe education of other children.
  The point at issue is a serious one. If cases are to be challenged at tribunal or later in the appeals process, it is important to know what is the Government's thinking on the question of cost as a factor. Unless she is going to accept the amendment, I hope that the Minister will explain why she is not happy with the proposal to substitute the word "effective" for "efficient".
  Mr. Levitt: The whole House will know the reputation of the three Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). All three are absolutely committed to the cause of disabled people and to children with special needs. All three have served as officers of the all-party disablement group. Whatever they may say, therefore, I am sure that they will have been as embarrassed by and ashamed of the rant from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) against mainstream integration of children with special needs as we on this side were. The hon. Gentleman was either telling us a story based on partial evidence, ill-informed evidence and hearsay, or describing the very attitudes which will guarantee that integration will not work—that disabled children and children with special needs should be out of sight and out of mind, and that the integration of these children cannot succeed because it could only ever happen at the expense of the majority. Every Labour Member, Liberal Democrat Member and, I believe, Conservative Front-Bench Member would distance themselves from that attitude wholeheartedly.
  4 pm
  Mr. Leigh: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that I have two children who have special educational needs and are at mainstream primary schools?
  Mr. Levitt: I am delighted to hear it. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman can come up with examples of how integration in the mainstream can work.
  I remind the House that the Bill, which we all thought would proceed in the amiable, positive and progressive way in which it has from the word go, aims to ensure, first, the effective integration, where that is the choice, of children with special needs in mainstream schools and, secondly, the informed choice of parents and children
  500
  about the use of special schools, accepting wholeheartedly that there will continue to be a role for special schools, in particular for children with severe hearing impairments.
  Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the contribution from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) almost sought to create a conflict between teachers in mainstream schools and those in special schools that does not exist? It is a great shame that such a debate should make those in different settings feel that this House thinks there should be some conflict.
  Mr. Levitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and pre-empts what I was about to say. Teachers from special schools are assisting teachers in mainstream schools who teach those with special needs. There is a thoroughly seamless and integrated approach.
  In Derbyshire we have the concept of the enhanced resource school. It is a mainstream school teaching children with special needs in an integrated way, but with additional funding from the local authority for additional staff and resources, not only to make integration work but to make sure that the extra help that children with special needs get is not in any way at the expense of anyone else. Such examples of good practice exist. I previously commended the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), for her decision a couple of weeks ago to provide funding through a private finance initiative scheme for the replacement of a special school in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) acknowledges that she is in the same position. That shows the Government's commitment to the parallel provision of mainstream and special schools in taking special needs education forward.
  The Conservative party does not believe in having too much government, so presumably it believes in having the minimum number of words in a Bill and in not including unnecessary words. Yet today that party is arguing for a new clause which on the face of it looks unarguable and pious. At the same time it perhaps disguises fears and "stirring up" on the Dart of people like the hon. Member for Gainsborough. Yet it is wholly unnecessary in terms of improving the Bill and making it more effective. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen are pursuing it.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough talked about his chair lift. He told us how the funding for it was raised from voluntary sources—only to find that the lift could not be used. Clearly, that school needs to be aware of the schools access initiative, that there is Government funding to make schools accessible to children with disabilities, and that, by 2003, the sums going into schools will be 10 times what they were when the Tory Government left office. The purpose of the funding is to allow for integration.
  This is a wholly uncontroversial Bill, save to say that the Special Educational Consortium, which comprises 200 organisations representing disabled children, is of the view that the Bill does not require further amendment and should not be amended. With that thought in mind, I hope that the House will reject new clause 2.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to my feet 21 years almost to the minute after I rose to give a very different speech at the reception

  501
  following my wedding. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for missing the first few minutes of her speech introducing the new clause. I was called out of the Chamber to receive a flower, which is now in my buttonhole, from my wife. I hope that the House will accept her contribution to this afternoon's debate as she is both a governor of a special school and an assistant classroom helper at that school.
  The debate needs some lightening after the last two contributions from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was trying to make and succeeded in making an important point which certainly stuck home with me from my knowledge of education in my constituency. We had a school with a preponderance of children with special educational needs. Whether we like it or not, that was a discouragement to parents of other children from applying to that school. That is a sad comment on social life in Britain today. If we are to encourage people to accept the integration of children with special needs in mainstream education, we must move at a pace that they are willing to accept. No longer is it the education authority that dictates where children go to school; it is the parents who have a choice. We have to be alive to their choices. The vast majority of parents welcome the school that cares for children with special educational needs as well, but they want a school with a broad base of children with all types of special interests and skills. That is what makes a successful school. The aim of getting that balance right must be at the heart of our policy.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) in his laborious, long-winded attention to definition was getting to the heart of the matter. Over 18 years the previous Government developed a body of legislation concerning special educational needs. The underlying assumption behind that was that we were talking about the needs of the child. This afternoon and in previous debates it appears that the Government and their supporters think that we are talking about the needs of the parents or the need for the efficient education of the other children. Surely we must be talking about the needs of the child, and that is the point about the new clause. It is to enshrine in the Bill the fact that the needs of the child are paramount—that child's special educational needs and no one else's.
  We need to do that because there is a real worry about resources. In 1997, the leading firm of accountants, Coopers and Lybrand, identified what they described as an expenditure time bomb—the rising cost of spending on educational needs, as, during the past decade, the number designated, formally or informally, as having those needs has doubled as a proportion of children in school. In fact, in only four years, specific expenditure on the special educational needs of children with statements rose from £290 million to £370 million—an increase of 25 per cent.
  The worry for people whose children have such needs is that through the Bill—overtly or not—the Government intend to rein in, by moving the goal posts, the spending that must be committed to those children. That worry is what is behind the new clause. It is to prevent at some point—if not at present, in the future—the goal posts being moved through the enactment of the Bill, with future provision for children suffering as a result.
  502
  This afternoon, we have heard a great deal about integrating children's education. Where that can be achieved, it is of course the right way to go. However, the professor of special educational needs at the university of Manchester, Peter Farrell, said that social inclusion is not necessarily the same as educational inclusion. Gosden House, the school where my wife works, makes a fantastic contribution to our community. It is proud of the children who leave to go into mainstream education, but it is also incredibly proud of the children who leave the school to go into mainstream society.
  The other day, I attended the school's open day—a peace day—when the children gave a wonderful performance in the school hall. I met several former pupils who had come back to support Gosden House. It was striking how many of them were making a success of life in mainstream society. Surely, we should not lose sight of that vital goal—the needs of the child, which are not necessarily the same as those of the parent or of other children in the education system.
  The education authority has to balance a host of demands in meeting educational needs. When the Conservatives came back to power in Surrey, spending on special educational needs was about £70 million a year. Of that, £10 million was for transport. That seems a totally disproportionate amount to all of us, so we must look forward to a time when schools are able to use the resources they are given for special educational needs more flexibly and more imaginatively. When they do so, the attraction of mainstream schools for children with special needs will increase.
  When the Select Committee on Education and Employment visited the United States about a year ago, we visited several charter schools. I well remember one successful school, the City on the Hill in Boston, which was run by a head teacher who was clearly on the left of the Democrat party. She looked straight at me and said, "Nick, what you have to remember is that charter schools are where the radical left meets up with the radical right." Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead has demonstrated that she is a member of the radical right, because she promotes the idea of free schools, which borrows very much from the success of the charter school movement in the States. We recognise that if we give money directly to schools, their success will be enhanced.
  One of the ways in which the City on the Hill has achieved success is that its budget for special educational needs does not depend on children being statemented at all. The education authority gives the school a subvention on the assumption that it will be prepared to accept its fair share of children with special educational needs and that it will do its best for them where they need support. That means that the seamless progress that hon. Members have been talking about this afternoon can happen without the need for constant definition and review of the child's position on the spectrum of special educational needs and mainstream provision.
  4.15 pm
  That is the approach that we look forward to in the new clause. Money would go directly from the Secretary of State to schools, so the Secretary of State must give direction to those schools and ensure that they fulfil the requirements of such an approach. In due course, I believe that we will move to such a system because—goodness

  503
  knows—the present system is excessively bureaucratic. Ofsted says that only one in five schools fulfils its statutory requirements to provide for special educational needs, and that more than a third misuse some of the money that they receive, or fail to implement a proper strategy for meeting the special educational needs of their children. Clearly, the current approach is not working. To change the definitions, as the Bill proposes, will do nothing to help. In looking forward to that time, I support the provision because it envisages a direct relationship between the Secretary of State and the mainstream schools which provide for special educational needs.
  Finally, I remind the Government of the Secretary of State's comments on the code of practice during an earlier debate on the Bill. Having got his fingers burnt at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings, when the whole world of special educational needs cried foul at the suggestion that the specifying provisions, which are in the present code, might be removed, the Secretary of State withdrew and said:
  "The code will state clearly that statements should 'describe clearly all of the child's special educational needs in full'".—[Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365. c. 218.]
  All we are saying in the new clause is that that principle is so important that it should be enshrined in the Bill and not merely left to a code of practice that might be amended by a future Secretary of State.
  Jacqui Smith: I shall begin my response by dealing with the proposed new clause. As the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) rightly says, it returns us to the important issue of the needs of the child, which we debated at some length both on Second Reading and, constructively, in Committee. Indeed, the new clause has many similarities to amendment No. 5 and new clause 5 tabled in Committee.
  The debate in Committee was constructive and I thought that it had helped to allay some concerns. To that extent, I am marginally disappointed that we are going over the arguments again. Some of the issues raised were considered previously and some are new; I hope to respond to all of them.
  The key point is that I am sure that everyone in the Chamber believes that the interests of individual children with special educational needs, and their peers, must be safeguarded. I hope that no one doubts the Government's commitment to that. However, it is worth remembering the context within which the argument began. It related to the Government's decision, following consultation, to remove what was, in effect, a caveat on the placement of children with special educational needs, which argued that the needs of the children should be paramount. A point rehearsed today—one which was certainly made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on Second Reading—is that such a caveat in the Bill would have acted in a way that many of us would consider unsatisfactory. It is important not to forget that we are operating in that context.
  We also decided to drop that caveat because we firmly believe that safeguards exist elsewhere which adequately protect pupils with special educational needs, so I shall argue, first, that there are some technical difficulties with new clause 2; secondly, that to include provisions about
  504
  the needs of the children as new clause 2 proposes would, in effect, act against what we are trying to achieve; and, thirdly, that we ensure that the interests of the child are covered elsewhere through a whole range of legislation and in the processes that are undertaken in relation to children with special educational needs.
  I shall take the third argument first. In Committee I outlined those safeguards in detail and, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead mentioned, I wrote to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) to set them out, copying that letter to other members of the Committee. In particular, in addition to the legislative bases that the hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to, I drew attention to the fact that the SEN code of practice and the statementing process ensure that children's educational needs are identified and that appropriate action is taken to help them to achieve their potential.
  In many ways, the final point made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) reinforces our arguments that new clause 2 is unnecessary. Statements will specify the provision to be made, so local education authorities are under a duty to arrange for it to be made. Therefore the important issue of children's needs and the provision that should be made for them is enshrined at the heart of the statementing process.
  Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools will monitor the new inclusion framework. That monitoring will include looking at whether the needs of pupils with special educational needs are being appropriately provided for under the new framework. We believe that that will help to prevent abuses, if they were to occur, and to ensure that the needs of the child are safeguarded.
  As I also highlighted in Committee, sections 496, 497 and 497A of the Education Act 1996 allow the Secretary of State to intervene where local education authorities or maintained schools are acting unreasonably or failing to fulfil a statutory duty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has used those powers to protect the interests of pupils with special educational needs. I outlined in Committee some of the occasions on which that has happened.
  Mr. Boswell: Given the context and the reference to the reasonability provisions, which the hon. Lady rightly mentioned, while we cannot necessarily treat a hypothetical case here, would it not seem extraordinary if Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools were to draw attention to a dereliction of duty on the part of the local education authority in implementing the inclusion framework, if the Secretary of State were not then, as an Executive act, to call in and question the reasonability of that action by that authority?
  Jacqui Smith: I am not completely clear what the hon. Gentleman is referring to.
  Mr. Boswell: I was trying to do it in my cod lawyer language, but let us do it in English. If the inspector says that there is something wrong with the way in which the LEA is operating inclusion, would it not be sensible as a matter of course—although I am not asking for a formal commitment—for the Secretary of State to call in the local authority and ask what it proposes to do about it?
  Jacqui Smith: As I believe we made clear in Committee and as I have made clear today, the opportunity does exist,

  505
  through those provisions, for the Secretary of State to use powers where maintained schools or LEAs are acting unreasonably or failing to fulfil a statutory duty.
  In Committee, when we discussed amendment No. 1, which covered similar ground to the new clause before us, I asked Opposition Members what practical and workable arrangements could be put in place in addition to the Secretary of State's existing powers. No examples have been provided in Committee or since. That suggests that what already exists is adequate.
  During today's debate, some Members have expressed concern about the suggestion that, as a result of the Bill, children could be forced into mainstream schools. Our legislation is drafted in such a way that, when parents do not want a mainstream place for the child, the duty to provide mainstream education is lifted. That does not mean that LEAs cannot name a mainstream place in a child's statement, but where LEAs do so and parents disagree they of course have a right of appeal at a SEN tribunal.
  We also had some discussion—some of it measured, some less so—about which children it may or may not be appropriate to include in a mainstream school. Of course I accept that there are questions about which children are appropriately included in mainstream schools and those for whom it would be less appropriate. Obviously, the learning and safety of other children must not be jeopardised, and where the efficient education of other children cannot be safeguarded, a mainstream place should be refused. Where that is the case, there needs to be a range of alternative, high-quality provision, but it does not necessarily follow that it is impossible successfully to include in a mainstream school a child who has, for example, emotional and behavioural difficulties. There are plenty of examples of where that does happen, and we want to empower more schools to emulate their example.
  There has already been comment on some of the remarks by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who did, I fear, in a slightly less measured way than we have experienced until now in debate on the Bill, suggest, whether or not he meant to, that including children with special educational needs in a mainstream school is necessarily disruptive, and that those children will be difficult and pose a problem.
  The vast majority of children with special educational needs are not disruptive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) admirably described, children with special educational needs cover the whole range of the ability spectrum and can be a positive benefit to mainstream schools. One of our arguments for developing, where possible, and in the pragmatic way that we are, inclusion in mainstream schools is that we consider that that is of benefit not only to the children who are included in those schools but to all children in those schools.
  The hon. Member for Guildford, in a slightly more measured way—it may be the good influence of the day, and I am sure that everyone in the Chamber would want to extend their congratulations to him on his anniversary—argued that where schools are well resourced and teachers are well trained, which is of course important, inclusion in mainstream schools can be of benefit both to the children who are included and to the other children in those schools.
  506
  There were some concerns that if we did not accept new clause 2, we would put special schools at risk or make it harder to obtain a special school place. I reiterate that our proposals in the Bill do not make it harder for parents whose children have statements to gain a special school place. We have always argued that one size does not fit all. That is why we have signalled a continuing role for special schools, and a very important one.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead rightly said that there is significant expertise in special schools, which should be increasingly shared with mainstream schools. That is one of the major objectives of the increased investment that we are making—through the standards fund, for example. It was the intention of the CD-ROM that I launched last year to bring together good practice that showed special schools and mainstream schools working together constructively.
  Other hon. Members have suggested that our proposals risk bringing about the closure of some special schools. I can only reiterate that special schools have nothing to fear from the Bill, and repeat that although the size of the special school sector dropped from serving 1.3 per cent. of children in 1991 to 1.2 per cent. in 1995, it has remained constant in each of the last six years, catering for 1.2 per cent. of all children or roughly 97,000 pupils. We do not envisage that that will change dramatically.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South made a very important point about the dangers of looking at raw closure data, because in doing so one ignores the many excellent resource bases that have been set up to provide high-quality specialist provision in mainstream schools. We know that, as my hon. Friend suggested, parents and children like that sort of provision, and that teachers like it especially as it often ensures that the children can be educated in the community with their friends.
  I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that what we believe exists, and what we believe will continue under our legislation, is a buoyant and vibrant specialist sector, which has an important contribution to make in educating individual children and in developing the whole education system.
  4.30 pm
  Hon. Members have also mentioned resources—an important issue. I can only repeat the arguments that we used in Committee: the Government are providing significant resources to ensure that these measures are effective and that children receive the education that they deserve—whether in mainstream or special schools. As well as the extra £540 per pupil increase in school funding and the total capital spending on schools, which will be £8.5 billion for the next three years, specific funding is aimed at some of the issues that hon. Members have raised today.
  The standards fund, which covers important issues such as special educational needs training, has been increased from £55 million in the previous financial year to £82 million in this financial year. That sum is more than four times the £17 million available in 1997£98. I am sure that that will reassure the hon. Member for Gainsborough. As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said, the schools access initiative stands at £220 million over the next three years, so 10 times as much money will be available from that source in 2003–04 than under the previous Government.

  507
  Hon. Members will also be pleased that we announced today a further £4 million package, outlining our commitment to partnerships—an issue that several hon. Members have raised. The voluntary sector will receive just over £1 million for projects under the SEN small programmes fund, bringing together different agencies and the voluntary sector to work with mainstream and special schools. Some £1 million will be used to support the continuing work of the SEN regional partnerships, and £2 million will be used to support training for the independent people who will facilitate the new dispute resolution arrangements.
  As I have suggested, there are technical problems with the new clause, but I shall concentrate on the effect that we know from experience it will have. As with other amendments, the new clause threatens significantly to undermine our proposals to strengthen the right to a mainstream place for children with special educational needs. Whatever the intentions behind the new clause, its effect would be to reinstate provisions similar in effect to the first caveat in section 316 of the Education Act 1996.
  That is why, in a letter sent to the hon. Member for Maidenhead, a member of the Council for Disabled Children said:
  "I also note that you feel concern that the needs of the child are being ignored. Clause 1 of the Bill amends only one Section of the 1996 Education Act. Elsewhere in the Act, and in the associated regulations and the Code of Practice, the 'needs of the child' are explicitly stated."
  It is also why the Special Educational Consortium, which represents many of the organisations that operate in the field, said:
  "On the face of it, it appears contradictory that a Consortium that has come together to campaign around the needs of children with SEN is arguing that the needs of the child do not need to he explicitly stated on the face of the Bill. However, SEC does not believe it to be necessary, and is concerned that, if re-instated, this condition could be further misused."
  For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Maidenhead will feel able to withdraw the new clause. We believe that our proposals protect all pupils—those who have special educational needs and those who do not. They will ensure that inclusion is based on sound foundations and that an inclusive education service offers excellence and choice.
  Under amendment No. 1, the word "efficient" would be replaced by the word "effective" in proposed new section 316. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) suggested, it is driven by the concern that the use of term "efficient education" could be interpreted unscrupulously to limit inclusion or resources. He implied that it was somehow rather unprogressive of me to suggest that we need to have consistency in legislation. Dare I say that, although it might not be exciting, consistency in legislation is rather important if it is to operate properly and to have the effects that we want. Therefore, the inclusion of the term "efficient education" in very many other provisions in education law is an argument for its appropriateness to the Bill.
  It might be helpful if I explain how the efficient education caveat will work in practice. We believe that it will be possible to demonstrate that a child's inclusion will be incompatible with the efficient education of others
  508
  only in a small number of cases. For example, a mainstream place should not be provided where it can be clearly shown that a child's behaviour is so challenging that the safety of others cannot be guaranteed, where other children's learning would be persistently and systematically disrupted, or where, even with other support, a child's inclusion would involve the teacher spending a greatly disproportionate amount of time with the child in relation to the rest of the class.
  Of course we would allow that caveat to be used only if maintained schools and LEAs were unable to show that there were reasonable steps that they could take to prevent that incompatibility. In considering what is reasonable—that is, whether an LEA or school can take reasonable steps to prevent a child's inclusion being incompatible with the efficient education of others—cost will be taken into account, but cost will not be a factor in deciding whether a child's inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children.
  Given that commitment and the fact that the new inclusion framework will be monitored by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who has been asked to pay particular attention to the use of the new caveats to ensure that they are not abused, I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will not press amendment No. 1 to a Division.
  Dr. Harris: I shall deal briefly with new clause 2 and the contribution of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I join hon. Members in congratulating him on his 21st wedding anniversary, but I hope, for his wife's sake, that he provides her with more than a copy of that mention in Hansard as his gift. He fell into the same trap of being too loose with some of his terminology that other Conservative Members have. As the record will show, he said that it is important that the needs of the child should be rated more highly than those of society or parents. I do not know where he got the expression "parents' needs" from, but I cannot find the expression "needs of the parent" or "parents' needs"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to make a contribution now, he must seek the leave of the House.
  Dr. Harris: I will not seek the leave of the House to press that point. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, it would appear that the hon. Gentleman does not have the leave of the House.
  Mrs. May: This important debate has gone right to the heart of the issue of whether we should aim to provide the education that is right for every child. We believe that we should, and that is why we tabled new clause 2.
  The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) was generous in his references to the Opposition Front-Bench team and to our commitment to working for disabled people. However, I must disabuse him about our views on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). It is incredible that Labour Members tried to silence the voice of teachers, because it is their voice that my hon. Friend tried to express to the House. Their views may not be convenient to Labour Members, but they need to be heard.

  509
  The Bill provides that children with statements of special educational needs must be educated in mainstream schools unless that is incompatible with the wishes of parents or with the provision of efficient education for other children. I simply believe that it is common sense that those two points should be balanced by the consideration of the needs of the child. What is important is not what is right to meet Government targets, but what is right for the individual child. The needs of the child should come first, and that is why I wish to press the new clause to a vote.
  Question put, That the new clause be read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 236.

  Division No. 197]

  [4.40 pm

  AYES

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Loughton, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Luff, Peter

  Bercow, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Blunt, Crispin

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Boswell, Tim

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maples, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Mates, Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chope, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clappison, James

  Norman, Archie

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cran, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Paice, James

  Day, Stephen

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan, Alan

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Prior, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Flight, Howard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ruffley, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ruffley, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gale, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Garnier, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gill, Christopher

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gray, James

  Spring, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Greenway, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Grieve, Dominic

  Syms, Robert

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tredinnick, David

  Hayes, John

  Trend, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Viggers, Peter

  Horam, John

  Walter, Robert

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hunter, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Yeo, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. John Randall.

  510

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Fisher, Mark

  Alexander, Douglas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Allan, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Galloway, George

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Gapes, Mike

  Atkins, Charlotte

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Austin, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Gerrard, Neil

  Banks, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Goggins, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Battle, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Beard, Nigel

  Grogan, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Hanson, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Harvey, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Berry, Roger

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Best, Harold

  Hendrick, Mark

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Hill, Keith

  Borrow, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Brake, Tom

  Hope, Phil

  Browne, Desmond

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Burnett, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cann, Jamie

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Jamieson, David

  Caton, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cawsey, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Chidgey, David

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Clapham, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Joyce, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Coleman, Iain

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Colman, Tony

  Kemp, Fraser

  Connarty, Michael

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Corston, Jean

  Lammy, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Cranston, Ross

  Lepper, David

  Crausby, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Levitt, Tom

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Darvill, Keith

  Linton, Martin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Livsey, Richard

  Davidson, Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Lock, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Love, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McCabe, Steve

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McFall, John

  Edwards, Huw

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Efford, Clive

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Ennis, Jeff

  McNulty, Tony

  511

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Snape, Peter

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Spellar, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stringer, Graham

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

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

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Trickett, Jon

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Tyler Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tynan, Bill

  Pike, Peter L

  Watts, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Willis, Phil

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wills, Michael

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wood, Mike

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Woodward, Shaun

  Roy, Frank

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  INSPECTION OF SPECIAL NEEDS PROVISION
  'In carrying out area inspections, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools must report in connection with any report on the education of children with special educational needs on—

  (a) the adequacy of local choice of settings for parents of such children;

  (b) the mechanism for ensuring that the funds intended to meet the special needs of the individual child are so provided and spent; and

  (c) the adequacy of arrangements for the reception and induction of children with special educational needs into educational establishments situated within the area or serving its pupils.'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause relates to an important aspect of the Bill to which the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch
  512
  (Jacqui Smith), referred several times. It deals with the role of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools and the inspectorate to keep tabs on what is to happen as part of the new inclusion framework. Although we do not have much time, it is opportune that we should spend some of it on how inspections work. We must bear in mind the important caveat that the Office for Standards in Education is an independent department. It is not directly beholden to Ministers. One of its great strengths is that it can say what it thinks.
  As evidence to support my remarks, I have a letter from Chris Woodhead—
  Mr. John Bercow: Excellent man.
  Mr. Boswell: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's robust remark.
  The letter is almost Chris Woodhead's valedictory contribution as chief inspector, and it is specifically on this subject. It was sent to me on 30 November last year in response to a parliamentary question that was referred to him because of convention, and it has been lodged in the Library. Even though Chris Woodhead was sometimes a controversial figure, I do not think that any Member would take exception to anything in that letter. It was very trenchant and to the point, and I will return to it in a moment.
  I must point out to the House that there may be a technical error in the new clause. [Interruption.] The Government Whip the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), wants me to sit down, but he should hear what I have to say.
  The error reveals my personal background in further education because it refers to area inspections. I think that the Minister is aware, and has been briefed accordingly, that it was my intention to deal with all inspections carried out by the chief inspector, including those of local education authorities and of areas under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, so the new clause goes wider than further education, taking in schools, colleges, the lot.
  A few general remarks are called for about the inspection of special educational needs provision. I tabled my parliamentary question last November because I felt that insufficient attention was paid to that. It was also in my mind that as we move towards our stated intention of greater inclusion, or of the right to inclusion wherever possible, the role of the inspector will become ever greater. It is one thing for an inspection to be carried out in a special school—it has already been pointed out that many of those are excellent and appropriate to the job that they are doing—but it is a little more difficult to focus on special needs provision in mainstream schools. It is not an impossible task, and the inspector's letter to me, to which I referred, makes it clear that inspections can be general. There is no reason why they should be confined to special educational needs.
  The letter said:
  "For the inspection of provision for pupils with Special Educational Needs in mainstream schools, contractors are instructed that in some circumstances inspectors are required to have additional skills or expertise to inspect pupils effectively. If an SEN 'unit' or resourced provision in a mainstream school has a significant proportion of pupils with any of the following"—

  513
  he then lists a number of difficulties—
  "then the inspection of these should be led by an inspector endorsed to inspect that specialism."
  Those are the assurances that the House wants to hear about the inspection of, for example, dedicated special provision in a mainstream school.
  The inspector also pointed out that Ofsted has commissioned four short documents that focus on pupils with SEN, boys and girls, gifted and talented pupils and ethnic minority backgrounds as being specialist areas of concern. There are also forthcoming reports on the implementation of the national literacy strategy in special schools and on the evaluation of the national numeracy strategy in special schools. A lot is going on in the inspectorate, which is entirely welcome, and not as many of us are aware of that as we should be. It is clear that as we move towards greater inclusion, there will also be greater dispersion of the activity that caters for special educational needs, and it is important that the inspection process should reach into those areas so that inspectors can satisfy themselves about what is going on.
  I want now to make more specific remarks about the new clause, which is designed to reflect the particular context that the Bill will change and the move towards the new inclusion framework, as well as the concerns that we have expressed in debates about the Bill. New clause 3(a) invites the inspector to look at
  "the adequacy of local choice of settings for parents"
  of children with special educational needs. It is very well for Ministers and, I dare I say, my hon. Friends and me, to express an opinion; we all have a position and we all have local constituencies which, we hope, we know. We are lobbied on particular schools and interests. From my constituency experience, I know that parents often lobby on special education, and I am pleased that they do. They sometimes have an interest in inclusion and may have their heart set on a school that is not appropriate for their child. That situation may exist and may need testing, but it should not arise accidentally as a result of machination by the local authority.
  5 pm
  In our debates we have already emphasised that informed and genuine choice is important. Burrowing into SEN structures, one cannot but be struck by huge disparities. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) may wish to speak about that when he moves a subsequent new clause. However, I noticed a large disparity in the levels of statementing by different local authorities that were set out by the Minister in a recent written answer. In my own county of Northamptonshire, for example, 2.8 per cent. of the school population have statements, and that percentage is broadly similar in Leicestershire. In Nottinghamshire, the contiguous county to the north of Leicestershire, also in the east midlands, 1 per cent. of the school population has statements. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who knows that county well, has referred to a tradition of not statementing.
  That extraordinary disparity in special educational needs clearly derives from the traditions of different local authorities and is the kind of matter to which Ofsted may wish to return. Similarly, the House will be familiar with the different patterns of provision affecting the balance
  514
  between special and mainstream education and the types of special school provided by different counties and LEAs. In carrying out inspections, it is important that Ofsted takes an interest in that matter, is able to draw its concerns to the attention of Ministers and the general public, and then—this point is often forgotten—something will need to be done about the problem. Hence my earlier exchanges with the Minister about what will happen if Ofsted points to a problem under the inclusion framework.
  Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting and telling points about the adequate provision of local settings on which parents can make an informed choice. What assessment has he made of the challenges which, inevitably, will be posed by remote rural areas? Clause 39 deals with the extension of provision to the Isles of Scilly, where providing special needs education will be particularly challenging, as there are small groups of children on islands and in remote rural communities. Surely there is a particular challenge in such areas.
  Mr. Boswell: I strongly endorse that point. The challenge applies particularly to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but he will be the first to acknowledge that it is not confined to it. The matter should be resolved by the professional judgment of Ofsted in the light of all the circumstances. However, living only hundreds of yards from a county boundary, I believe that other factors must be borne in mind. Most hon. Members will be familiar with the fact that much of the delivery of special education is outsourced across local authority boundaries because of the need to match needs to provision and find the best solution. Ofsted should take an interest in exactly that kind of matter.
  Mr. Bercow: I recognise that my hon. Friend is describing an inspection, rather than a consultation, function. Nevertheless, will he confirm that, under new clause 3, the chief inspector would consult the LEAs in the areas in question, but his work would not consist exclusively of consultation with such bodies? Instead, it would involve listening to the views of parents and consultation with them, educational organisations and others.
  Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. It is right that in carrying out the inspection, the inspectorate should look for itself and see what is happening, and that it should not be nobbled by any particular interest. Thank God that the present chief inspector is an independent person who will want to take into account everything that is going on, but will not adopt a view necessarily aligned with that of the local education authority. Our concerns about practice in the past suggest that it would be unfortunate if some LEAs were allowed to get away with their traditional practices. I shall not comment further on that. Independence is important, and Ofsted is probably the right vehicle to deliver it.
  My second point, relating to subsection (b), may be summed up in the single word "transparency". Right across the SEN world and within the consortium, although there is general satisfaction with the Bill there is some concern about whether funds provided to LEAs and through LEAs, in accordance with the special educational

  515
  needs of children and the stages set out in the code, are delivered and expended on those children. It is an opaque area.
  In Committee I mentioned Dr. John Marks, who has shown that there is a high expenditure which may broadly be called SEN expenditure, that it has risen fast, and that nobody knows a great deal about it. It is an important professional role of the inspectorate to identify what money came in, what money was allocated for provision and on what basis, and whether it was delivered and spent on that provision. That is in the interests of parents and children with special educational needs and of mainstream parents as well.
  The third point, which is set out in subsection (c), concerns
  "the adequacy of arrangements for the reception and induction of children with special educational needs into educational establishments situated within the area or serving its pupils."
  That covers the point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) about cross-boundary provision.
  Educationally, induction—the moment of arrival—is the most difficult. I have come across distressing cases of children who have been well served in special schools, and have then been moved forward through an inclusion agenda or an inclusion philosophy to secondary schools where they enter mainstream provision. The arrangements made for their induction, including the training of teachers, which is critical, were not as good as they should have been, and the result has been a great deal of distress, usually leading to a retreat back into special provision. That is not satisfactory by anyone's standards, and I am sure that it is not what the Minister wants. It is a matter to which the inspectorate should pay particular attention.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a change of provision in my constituency, which has been a bitter experience. Residential pupils were asked to go to a different facility because of the closure of another one, and girls were transferred into what had previously been an all-boy environment. Subsection (c) addresses precisely the difficulty that occurred in that case.
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that constructive point and the way in which he expressed it. Whatever we may say about the Bill, and however much people may or may not be enthused by inclusion, there are always practical problems, and it is foolish to try to minimise them or sweep them under the carpet.
  In our earlier discussion of new clause 1 we dealt with matters related to mobility and independence, and the education and preparation of pupils for that. It was agreed in all parts of the House that those are important matters, which go a little wider than simply educational provision. It seems to me that Ofsted could, at least in principle, be the gatekeeper in this matter. It could draw attention to areas where it feels that there is no holistic approach to the needs of the child. It could also have a role when an important provision that bears on these matters, but which is not strictly about a special educational need, is not being adequately discharged.
  That is the sort of arrangement that we have in mind. I emphasise to the Under-Secretary with responsibility for school standards—in fairness, I think that she has already
  516
  made this point—that Ofsted has a heavy responsibility with regard to inspections not only of special schools, but of mainstream provision for special educational needs and the new inclusion framework. Indeed, its responsibility is greater than ever. We want the process to be successful and comprehensive, and we know that it will be professional. As new clause 2, which concerns the rights of the child, was not agreed to, such an arrangement seems an especially sound basis for ensuring that the possibility of inadequate provision, recriminations and the need for remediation is identified and dealt with.
  Jacqui Smith: I welcome the responsible way in which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) introduced the new clause, but I believe that it is unnecessary. Ofsted has the power to monitor SEN provision, and it does so. We believe that the arrangements that are currently in place and which are being introduced for monitoring SEN provision and related matters are sufficient. I hope that I can reassure him by speaking about some of them.
  The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the skills of those who are involved in the inspection. He will be aware that the personnel who are selected to carry out inspections and the way in which their inspections are conducted are matters for the chief inspector of schools. Ofsted issues guidance to its inspectors on the inspection of SEN provision, and Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools already has the power to advise the Secretary of State at any time on any matter related to the provision of education. The inspector also has a duty to provide advice and to report on such matters as the Secretary of State specifies in a request.
  On inspections of individual schools, Ofsted inspectors evaluate and report on the quality and range of opportunities for learning that are provided by a school for all its pupils, including those with SEN and disabilities. They also consider schools' policies and plans, which include, for example, their SEN policies. That consideration will involve information on how resources are allocated among pupils with SEN. Of course, the hon. Gentleman spoke about transition, reception and induction, with which I shall deal in a moment. I am sure that he will be reassured by the fact that, as inspection of early-years settings becomes more prevalent and we ensure a proper SEN policy for them, the inspection regime will also bite in that context.
  5.15 p.m.
  The inspectors must report on whether schools manage their resources effectively, including those that are spent on SEN. The hon. Gentleman spoke about transparency in relation to such spending. I am clear about the importance of ensuring transparency in respect of money that is delegated to schools and spent by local education authorities. That is why the Department for Education and Employment is working on how to identify good practice in authorities that delegate provision. We are also working on how to ensure that LEAs have more responsibility to demonstrate how they are delegating money for SEN and to make it clear what they expect from schools in terms of that money.
  The Secretary of State can use his powers under section 2 of the School Inspections Act 1996 and section 38 of the Education Act 1997 to require a report from Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools on any school or

  517
  local education authority functions that relate to education. As the hon. Member for Daventry pointed out, when the Bill was being debated in another place the Government made a commitment to ask the chief inspector to consider the impact of clause 1, especially proposed new section 316(3), on inclusion when the Bill is enacted. The chief inspector said that he would do that. That commitment was welcome in the House and in another place. We will also look to Ofsted to take account of schools' implementation of the relevant guidance in the revised SEN code of practice in future inspections.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned local education authorities. Her Majesty's chief inspector already has the power to inspect LEAs. Special educational needs is one of the four core activities of an Ofsted LEA inspection.
  New clause 3(a) deals with choice of settings. The changes that we are making in SEN provision will give parents of children with SEN and a statement a better deal than they currently have. They will offer better chances of securing a mainstream place for their child. Although there has never been a duty on LEAs to provide a choice of settings, they must arrange sufficient SEN provision in their area. However, as they have never had a specific duty to provide an adequate choice of settings, Ofsted cannot properly comment on that.
  Local education authorities have to present for approval school organisation plans which cover the way in which they will make sufficient provision, including SEN provision, for children in their areas. Under its framework for inspection, Ofsted must comment on the key functions of the LEA, including the provision of sufficient school places and the preparation of the school organisation plan.
  Mr. Boswell: I want to put on record that although there is historically no specific obligation on LEAs to require a range of choice of settings, section 11 of the Education Act 1996 obliges the Secretary of State to
  "exercise his powers with a view to … improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice."
  I presume that that duty on the Secretary of State is also likely to cover local education authorities' discharge of their responsibilities. It should be viewed as an encouragement of the desirable aim of diversity and choice, which is supported in different ways by all parties.
  Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman has achieved his aim of putting that on the record.
  I was dealing with an LEA's role in ensuring sufficient school places and preparing the school organisation plan, which requires local education authorities to provide adequate places for children with special educational needs. That is part of an LEA's key functions, which would be inspected in an Ofsted inspection of a local education authority.
  The framework also provides for Ofsted to comment on the allocation and provision of resources across all local education authorities' functions, including provision for special educational needs. I think that that covers some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about transparency. The Bill provides for the normal inspection framework for schools and local education authorities to cover functions relating to their duties to plan for improving accessibility, including the preparation, quality and implementation of such plans.
  518
  The new clause also draws attention, as did the hon. Gentleman, to the importance of adequate arrangements being in place for the reception and induction of children with special educational needs. I agree with him that that is a particularly important part of the transfer from one educational establishment to another. That is why the revised code of practice will reflect the importance of the transfer of information between all relevant parties when children or young people transfer, and of the particular arrangements that address this issue.
  In reporting on schools, Ofsted will comment on the quality of the provision for all children, including those with special educational needs. If Ofsted feels that the arrangements for the reception and induction of such children are adversely affecting the quality of provision for those children, it can draw the school's attention to that as part of the school's inspection.
  Given the reassurances that I have given to the hon. Gentleman about the current scope for Ofsted inspections and about future plans, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
  Mr. Boswell: In the light of the Minister's helpful assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

  SPECIFICATION OF PROVISION
  'In section 324 of the Education Act 1996 (statement of special educational needs) after subsection (4) insert—
  "(4A) In drawing up any specification of provision for a child's special educational needs the local education authority shall so far as is practicable have regard to the need for adequacy and quantifiability of such provision".'.—[Mr. Hayes.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Hayes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I am delighted to move new clause 4, which draws our attention to the important issues of statements and statementing. It is probably fair to say that the business of statementing, which was conceived by Baroness Warnock in her report, given life by the Education Act 1981 and reinforced by subsequent Acts, has, more than any other measure, given status to special needs education and to children with special educational needs.
  Statements also give a feeling of power to parents. They give parents the feeling that they have rights over their choices in respect of their children and the treatment that their children are likely to receive. However, statements do a great deal more than that. They are a tool for the detailed analysis of individual needs and the implementation of appropriate education to fit those needs. That is why the suggestion that statementing was to be diluted was greeted with such horror. That suggestion was given its head in the Government's Green Paper, some of whose implications many Labour Members, possibly including some on the Front Bench, probably regret.
  In Committee, I think that it was the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) who referred to the Green Paper as a green light for the closure of special schools. She said that some local authorities had even taken the

  519
  Green Paper as a stimulus for the closure of special schools. However, we have moved on from there, and one does not want to be too critical. The Government have learned their lessons, and they listened to the wiser heads, many of which were to be found on the Conservative Benches. The Government amended their proposals and we are pleased to see that statements are not now going to go the way that we thought they might.
  It is important for us to understand that statements need to be sufficiently specific, particular and well targeted, so that they can deliver the sort of educational opportunities that will allow each child to fulfil their potential regardless of their particular special need or disability. There is an issue here about the willingness of local authorities to offer a statement. There is also an issue about the marriage between statements and the real provision available to turn those statements into an educational reality, in terms of the choice and experience enjoyed by the individual child or student.
  I think that the House knows about most of our problems with statementing, but they are worth amplifying. First, parents and others often see the system as complex, esoteric and confusing. I believe that, in Committee, I said that parents were frequently bamboozled. Moreover, local education authorities are not always as humane and sensitive as they might be when parents are going through the difficult business of obtaining a statement.
  Secondly, local education authorities are often variable in their willingness to offer children statements. We know of that variability from a brief study of the position across Britain. I have Government statistics here that give the details, and although I do not propose to quote them exhaustively—I am sure you would not let me do that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House certainly would not tolerate it—I think it worth considering one or two. Some relate to London boroughs.
  In Bromley, 2.9 per cent. of children have statements, whereas down the road in Croydon the percentage is only 1.4 per cent. In Stockport the figure is 3 per cent., while in Oldham it is just 1 per cent. In Doncaster it is also 3 per cent.; in nearby Sheffield, it is 2.2 per cent. It is clear that some authorities are rather keener than others to issue statements.
  The third problem is the time scale. Local education authorities are obliged by statute to provide statements within 26 weeks, although the Audit Commission measures performance on the basis of an 18-week period, which seems perfectly reasonable. There is enormous variation between local education authorities in terms of not just the issuing of statements, but the time that it takes them to do so. According to the official statistics, in Conservative-controlled Wandsworth 100 per cent. of statements are prepared within 18 weeks—a record that I am sure we all wish to celebrate and be proud of—while in Greenwich the figure is 75 per cent., in Liverpool it is 41 per cent., and in Rotherham it is 56 per cent. For some reason, Stoke-on-Trent can only produce statements within 18 weeks on about 4 per cent. of occasions. I do not want to speculate on what is happening in Stoke-on-Trent, but it is clearly not good news for children with special needs or for their parents.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making his point with the eloquence and panache with which we customarily
  520
  associate him. He has made a semi-political point. I do not wish to do so on this occasion, but does he not agree that of the essence—whether or not a statement is decided on—is the privacy of the interests of the child? Surely what should be regarded as intrinsically objectionable in any local education authority is any notion that foot-dragging is taking place for the purpose of saving costs.
  Mr. Hayes: Eloquence is my stock-in-trade; I struggle a bit more with panache, but I manage to achieve it occasionally. I am delighted that my hon. Friend recognises that.
  My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the reasons for the variability to which I refer. He is right to suggest that some authorities may be pursuing the matter lethargically not just because of inefficiency, and that there may be a more sinister cause. I shall deal with that shortly, when I refer to the insistence in the new clause that local education authorities deal with specificity. It does not merely ask for that; it insists on it.
  5.30 pm
  I also wish to pick up the implied point that my hon. Friend made about the balance between statements and real provision. It may be that the reason why local authorities are not producing statements in sufficient number and are dragging their heels is that they do not have the provision to match the statements. Without the matching provision, a statement is not only a worthless document but a major embarrassment to the local authority.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I apologise for not being in my place at the start of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but I have studied the new clause and heard the thrust of his argument and I wonder what is the point of drawing attention to the long time that some authorities take to draw up statements, other than to decry the practice. The new clause says nothing about the time that a statement should take, but that is what I would have liked it to do.
  Mr. Hayes: On that basis, I shall rush to the point in my speech that deals much more closely and specifically with the content of the new clause. I wondered how long it would take the hon. Gentleman, who is always astute about such matters, to recognise that I was speaking rather broadly to the new clause to put the matter into its proper context.
  The new clause addresses the need to ensure that statements are specific and target the needs of the child precisely, and that the provision that ensues is equally well targeted. The problem is not only that the provision of statements is patchy, but that the provision of special needs education is patchy. The Minister said, with typical sincerity and the plain speaking for which she is renowned—
  Jacqui Smith: How charming.
  Mr. Hayes: I am charming as well as being eloquent and possessing panache. The Minister said that the number of special schools is stable. That is true. There have been some closures since 1997, but the trend started before that date and may be partly due to the greater

  521
  number of children being integrated into the mainstream. We cannot argue simply that closures have happened unjustifiably or without proper explanation. However, it is true that provision is by no means uniform, and that is highly relevant to the matter of statements. If a child needs a specific sort of educational provision that cannot be met locally—or sufficiently near to the child's home to allow real access to it—that may be an incentive for a local authority to fail to provide the statement or to make it so vague and woolly that almost any provision will do in response to it. Statements must be closely tied to the breadth and diversity of provision that predicates proper choice, because without that statementing will be diluted.
  From a close look at how special schools are situated across the country, we know that some local authorities have particular problems. The problem may not be so great in London, where it could be argued that people can travel easily across borough boundaries. However, it is worth pointing out that Barking and Dagenham has 58 schools in total but only one special school, while Redbridge has 89 schools in total and five special schools. There may be local reasons for that—
  Ms Hodge: Yes, there are.
  Mr. Hayes: I have no doubt that the Minister could tell me what those reasons are, but I presume that she does not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily.
  Let us look at the north-west of England where my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) has taken a particular interest in these matters. He has been a doughty defender of the interests of special needs pupils, parents and special schools. I hope that I may beg your indulgence for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He has played a key role in defending the interests of Brook Farm school and its pupils. It was kept open for a year due, almost entirely, to his efforts and those in the community whom he backed. I was lucky enough to visit that school, as was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on one occasion.
  In Cheshire, which has 380 schools, there are 17 special schools. In the Wirral, which has 154 schools, there are 13 special schools. These percentages, or ratios, suggest that the provision of special education, or, certainly, special education in special schools, is by no means uniform.
  Mr. O'Brien rose —
  Mr. Bercow rose —
  Mr. Hayes: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and then once again to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. O'Brien: The Minister is familiar with Brook Farm school because we have had a number of meetings and a lot of correspondence about it. Following the school adjudicators' adjudication, the school has been confirmed for closure. I have a letter from the chairman of the governors of Brook Farm school saying how disappointed and saddened they all are by the decision.
  There has been great concern in Cheshire—quite a widespread county geographically that does not have a huge number of schools—that many parents were having
  522
  to drive children 20 miles to that school from the other side of the county. If parents have to accept the school that is being offered as an alternative—and there are many reasons why we do not believe that it is a good alternative—they will have a further 20 miles to travel, resulting in a major cost, time and dislocation disadvantage. The adequacy issue in new clause 4 would help to address that problem.
  Mr. Hayes: I do not want to be taken to Cheshire for the whole of my speech, although that would be a happy journey and a pleasant experience. My hon. Friend is right to give that example as an illustration of a bigger problem. It is true, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley said in Committee, that some local authorities have assumed that they have a green light to close special schools. The closure of special schools, like their survival, is a patchy matter. In certain parts of the country it is difficult, in practical terms, to gain access to the sort of special school that parents might choose if they thought that that was in the interest of their child and if the child's statement specified that it would provide the most appropriate education for them.
  Mr. Bercow: I say nothing to detract from the perspicacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). However, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said that he did not want to spend the whole of his speech in or around Cheshire, so may I take this opportunity to put on the record a fact of which I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings is aware? The Furzedown special school in Winslow in my Buckingham constituency, whose head teacher is Mr. Norman Ward, does an outstanding job. It receives relatively little credit or attention and I wonder whether it could have the pleasure of a tribute from my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Hayes: I do not hand out tributes lightly but I am always happy to pay a tribute to anyone recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham), for any friend of my hon. Friend is a friend of mine. I know that he would not advertise the good work of that school unless it were entirely justified.
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman, and I think that we are in the realm of red herrings. To talk about the number of schools per authority implies that we need X number of schools for X number of statements. Does he agree that a statement requires a provision that matches its needs and that such a provision can be offered just as well in a non-special needs school as in a special needs school? I am hoping that there will be a time when no authority will have special needs schools and all children, regardless of ability, will be integrated into one school.
  Mr. Hayes: I do not share that view: I think that there is a need for a diversity of provision, by which I mean a mix of children who have been properly and well integrated into mainstream schools, of special units attached to mainstream schools and of special schools which exist, for example, for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. There will always be a number of EBD children who may be better educated outside the mainstream.

  523
  Different children have different disabilities. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) is not present at the moment, but he said in Committee, and again today, that he considers that children with profound hearing problems are often educated better in special schools. The same will be true of children with other problems.
  A point made in Committee is worth repeating today—that we should remember that special needs are dynamic. There may therefore be a need for children to move in and out of mainstream schools as their special need changes. I am thinking particularly about children with acquired brain injury, which is a special interest of mine. The special need of such children is hard to define, and it will change and have to be redefined. The skills to teach those children are difficult to impart to teachers. Those children may at some times receive better education outside the mainstream, although they may be moved back into the mainstream at certain points in their educational progress and personal development.
  I therefore do not entirely share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), but I acknowledge—I thought I had done so already but I shall repeat the point—that it is not enough to say that patchy provision means that all children do not receive a good education. Education delivery may depend on the relative success of integration strategy: authorities that took such a strategy seriously early on are probably further down the road to the successful integration of special needs children into mainstream schools. That will have an effect on the number of special schools that remain in existence in those authorities.
  However, it is not possible to assume that that will always be the case. I do not mean that as a partisan statement. Some local authorities give greater priority and emphasis to special educational needs than others, and some have integrated children into the mainstream much more successfully than others. Some allocate greater resources for the task, and place greater emphasis on good special schools than others.
  The word that I used earlier to describe that variable provision was "patchiness", which affects detrimentally the availability for many children of appropriate education that is in line with statements. The new clause would strengthen the rights of parents and children to have statements that are appropriate and quantifiable. It would ensure that statements were sufficiently specific to allow proper education to be provided in line with children's needs.
  Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman's primary criticisms of the statementing process are that it is esoteric and resource-driven. It is in parents' interest to seek a statement for their child, as it brings further focus and resources to that child's education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—with his characteristic charm, panache and eloquence—will say to what extent this rather esoteric new clause would deal with the esoteric nature of statementing. How will it deal with the problem that the statementing process is fundamentally resource-driven?
  Mr. Hayes: I invite the hon. Gentleman to look closely at the new clause, which deals with adequacy and
  524
  quantifiability. If a statement is made more specific, and is tied more closely to proper provision, questions of adequacy and quantif ability are unavoidable.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On the particular point about specificity, I have received letters from my constituents, Mrs. Pritchard and Mr. Nicol, both of whom have children with special needs. It is clear from their letters that they are deeply concerned about the specifics of the Bill, especially as the final proposed code of conduct was not available in advance of this debate. They are worried that the new statementing regime could be watered down. What matters to them is to know how many hours of extra educational support their children will receive. Unfortunately, it is thought that the new code of conduct will mean that statements need describe only what is necessary, and that they will not quantify what is to be provided, nor demonstrate its adequacy.
  I fully support the new clause, for the reasons that my constituents have highlighted so cogently.
  Mr. Hayes: With typical perspicacity my hon. Friend has anticipated the summary point that I was about to make. He will not, however, have anticipated that I have a copy of the letter to which he refers. He is right in saying that the lady who wrote to him and the two sets of parents with whom he has corresponded are anxious that the statement should be specific in detail and quantified in terms of the number of hours of ancillary or specialist teaching or support required in order to meet the statement, and that the statement will not be so vague or woolly as to allow the local authority to place a child in a school which would be unable—perhaps not unwilling—to meet the needs of the statement in terms of the education it provided. There are real doubts about that.
  Earlier in today's proceedings organisations and umbrella groups were cited. Members may be familiar with Action on Entitlement, an umbrella organisation which includes Action Support for the Special Needs Child, the Advisory Centre for Education, All Children Together, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, the Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education, the Child Growth Foundation, the National Deaf Childrens Society—I could go on. It makes the very point that my hon. Friend has made and which his constituents are anxious should be articulated in the Chamber today. They ask that the code of practice which will accompany the measure is absolutely specific on the nature of the child's educational needs and the amount and frequency of special educational provision required to meet them. The statement should specify the kind and quantity of special education provided. This is the quantifiable and adequacy point that we seek to reinforce through our new clause.
  There are real worries about what the legislation will do in this respect and what the code of practice may not do to supplement it. Unless the code of practice reinforces the very points made by Action on Entitlement, my hon. Friend, his constituents and Committee members, it may be—to paraphrase the hon. Member for Colne Valley whom I only wish was here to hear herself quoted a third time—a green light for all sorts of measures which no hon. Member would wish to see in terms of watering down the quality and quantity of good special needs education, be it in mainstream or special schools.

  525
  In those interests and with that cause in mind I propose the new clause. It adds to and reinforces the good principles which lie behind much of this legislation and which certainly lie behind the intentions of hon. Members throughout the Chamber.
  5.45 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not intend to detain the House for long. This has been one of my long-standing interests. I came in to listen and found myself becoming increasingly concerned about the tone of the debate.
  We seem to be encouraging parents to use a statement as a weapon against the local education authority or other provider of services. I agree that this has been the only weapon that parents have had in the past. While resources were run down under the previous Government, local education authorities were finding it extremely difficult to provide for children with special educational needs. As a result, parents grasped the idea of statements as being a tool against local education authorities in the battle for resources. I feel uncomfortable about that. Local education authorities should be on the parents' side. They should be trying to raise standards and raising standards by giving children with special educational needs the resources that they need to meet those needs. So I feel uncomfortable about the tone of the debate. We should be encouraging much more co-operation and trying not to set up this rather confrontational position that we seem to have got ourselves into.
  My main reason for attending the debate is that I, too, have received a letter from the parent of a child with Down's syndrome. She expresses concern about the proposed change in the code of practice for special education. Indeed, there must be a national campaign, because the quotation read out by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) equates closely to words in the letter from my constituent. However, there is obviously real concern that unless the statement is specific, parents will not receive the help and provision to meet their child's special educational needs.
  My constituent tells me:
  "There is a suggestion … from what the Department has written … that the wording might say provision should be quantified 'as necessary'. This gives the impression that often it will not be necessary to put the hours of help in the statement when in fact the reverse is true … I know a vague statement will not ensure the help my child requires."
  I am looking for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that it is not the intention to remove that power—that tool—from parents. There should be a more co-operative attitude; local authorities should be on the side of parents and should recognise that the only way to raise standards is by providing the resources needed by individual children.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I do not want to pursue the matter too far, but there is clearly a coincidence of interest between the hon. Lady and me, given the respective letters that we received from our constituents. I shall put that into the context of her opening remarks, which slightly concerned me although I bow to her greater experience in these matters. Does she agree that, rather than a weapon against local authorities, what parents most want is confidence in circumstances that are often stressful, difficult and protracted, when ultimately it is they who
  526
  have the best interests of their child at heart? If there can be partnership between the LEA and the parent, that is all well and good, but it may not apply in all cases. I should have preferred the hon. Lady to have put that gloss on her opening remarks.
  Mrs. Campbell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that maximum partnership and co-operation between the LEA, the school and the parent are in the best interests of the child. That is the best way to meet those interests.
  Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary assure us that the Government want to encourage that co-operation and partnership, and that the changes in the wording do not mean that children will be deprived of the resources that they need?
  Jacqui Smith: I thank the contributors to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on his self-proclaimed panache and charm. To show hon. Members how well informed I am, I wonder whether they might be interested to learn that "panache" is the name of a weak French beer—although I am sure that the 1958 vintage was splendid.
  The hon. Gentleman outlined concerns about the whole issue of statements, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I shall respond to some of the points that were made.
  The first point relates to the different degrees of statementing in different local education authorities. It is, of course, impossible to set up hard and fast national criteria for SEN provision, when the nature, complexity and pattern of individual children's needs and the pattern of school provision vary so much. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) pointed out, a child might require an SEN statement in one area, but might not need one in another where, for example, there was more school-based provision. That does not necessarily mean, however, that there is a difference in the quality of provision made for each child.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out, the confidence of parents is crucial. In the past, parents believed that obtaining a statement was the way to get the provision that they wanted for their children. I hope that the improvements in parent partnerships and support for parents—not only in the revised SEN code of practice but in the Bill—will help to make parents feel more confident in the system.
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings raised the issue of the different lengths of time that local education authorities take to issue statements. He quoted the Audit Commission figures, which actually show that there has been an improvement in the performance of authorities in England in recent years. In 1996, only 40 per cent. of draft statements were produced within the time limit, but in 2000 that figure was 77 per cent. None the less, we have asked, and continue to ask, poorer performing authorities to explain why their performance is disappointing, and for evidence of improved performance. We have provided good practice guidance and reported from the best performers to those whose performance could be improved, and we shall continue to take steps to help bring all authorities up to the standard of the best and to improve overall performance, not least in the improvements that we intend to make in the new code of practice.

  527
  The proposals represented in the new clause are unnecessary and would not necessarily serve the best interests of children with statements. Its requirement for the LEA to have regard to the need for adequacy of provision is unnecessary. Local education authorities are required to carry out a statutory assessment of the special educational needs of children for whom, effectively, they believe that they may need to maintain a statement. Those assessments are a thorough investigation of a child's learning difficulties. They involve a range of advice, and the LEA has a duty to seek and consider that advice before deciding whether to issue a statement for a child.
  The revised SEN code of practice will set out the expectation that LEAs will also seek and consider the ascertainable views of the child. If, having completed an assessment, they decide to issue a statement, they must set out the special educational needs of that child in light of the assessment, and they must specify the provision to meet those needs. By its very nature, the process requires the LEA to specify provision that is adequate: it must meet the child's needs.
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings also raised the issue of quantification. If the new clause is designed to establish a need for local education authorities to quantify provision in statements, whatever the needs and circumstances of each individual child, I believe that it would not be in the best interests of individual children with statements of SEN. There will be occasions when it would not be appropriate to quantify provision. Given the shortness of time, I shall give only a brief example.
  A child with a speech and language impairment could be expected to progress rapidly in some areas. The content and detail of speech therapy provision will therefore need to change, often weekly. A deaf child who needs help specifically with communication skills from a specialist teacher of the deaf for a certain time each week may have a statement that specifies access to such a teacher, perhaps for a minimum amount of time, which could be revised in light of progress towards the objectives set out in the statement. The key point is that we monitor progress toward objectives.
  The point of the example is to illustrate the importance of the principle of specifying provision—which is not necessarily the same as quantifying it in all cases—for each child individually, according to their particular needs and circumstances. That principle is enshrined in the current statutory requirement in section 324 of the Education Act 1996, backed up by the requirements of the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994.
  I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the sincere views that are held on this issue, and I am aware of the responses to our consultation on the code, so I emphasise the fact that we considered the matter extremely carefully, and have responded by making changes to the guidance in the final version of the code. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said many times that we have no intention of weakening the legal protection for children with statements, or of encouraging vague statements. Vague statements do
  528
  nothing to secure the right sort of help for a child with SEN, and they do not help a school to know what is required of it in helping a child to learn and progress.
  The right way forward is to make the guidance in the improved SEN code of practice better. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has outlined how we intend to do that, and said that we will retain the requirement in the SEN regulations for provision to be specified, matching the terms of the duty for LEAs set out in the Education Act 1996. On quantification, the code will make it clear that there may often be a need for provision—
  It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on consideration, pursuant to Order [20 March].
  Question put and negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6 pm
  Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I want to put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretaries, my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) and for Barking (Ms Hodge), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who was the Whip in Committee, for the enormous amount of work that they, and other Members on both sides of the House, did in Committee, and for ensuring that we reached this stage this evening.
  Perhaps such Bills do not receive the publicity that they deserve. Perhaps there is not the interest in the media—but there is enormous interest among our constituents and in the education service, and there is an enormous gain to be made in approving such Bills. I am very proud that—together and, I hope, with unanimity tonight—we have been able to take the Bill through the House and ensure that it becomes an Act, and to take sometimes modest, but important and valuable steps towards greater equality of opportunity.
  Legislation can play a part, but only a part, in changing attitudes and restructuring the culture, and in ensuring that people think a little more about what is necessary and about how they can help. During the consideration of the Bill, there have been disagreements about certain points. The debates have been important. Some hon. Members have said things that they may regret when they read them in print, but that has happened very little. Most of the discussion has been about the nuances, and hon. Members have agreed to differ, rather than fundamentally opposing the Bill, and that is how it should be. Given the assurances that have been obtained during the passage of the Bill in the Lords and in Committee in the Commons, and given that people have been able to hear that there is unanimity on so many of the points that have been made, I hope that we can make progress tonight.
  It is fair to say that there are times when people feel that others have different attitudes, when they have nothing of the sort. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) will forgive me for referring to the fact that on Second Reading, he implied that my experience of specialist residential provision for special needs had coloured my view. It certainly did so when I was a youngster and in my early political life, but I hope that we all mature to the point where we can balance our experiences with the needs of others.

  529
  On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "It is on the record—and I am sure that the Minister will accept—that the Secretary of State did not entirely enjoy his experience at school."—[Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 271.]
  Well, I did enjoy some of it and I put that fact on the record, as some of my old teachers are still alive and they might have felt that they had been maligned.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about his brother-in-law and his wife's sister, who have major sight problems. He said that their experience had been very different and that I had all the power and they had none. Let us forget all that. The Bill is not about power and different experiences; it is about getting the balance right between supporting inclusive education properly and making residential and specialist provision available where it is needed. It is about maintaining the right balance for the individual child, and about how that can be made acceptable to schools, by changing attitudes and practices. As was said at the beginning of our de bates this afternoon, there is a need to provide, in the classroom and the school, the support systems that make it possible for youngsters to experience genuine inclusion.
  I shall conclude my remarks by recalling the case of a parent whose little five-year-old child could not see, but attended a school in my constituency. The policy of inclusion had resulted in that youngster being isolated in the school playground. He was desperately lonely, feeling that he had no future. His parent came to me and asked whether we could do anything about that. I said, "Yes. First he has been included inappropriately; secondly, he has not been supported; thirdly, his cry for help has not been heard; and fourthly, we need to get him into a setting where he can learn the skills, obtain she tactile provision and receive the support for mobility and confidence so that he can be re-included in future if that is right for him." We must get it right for every individual child. I am committed to that, and I sincerely believe that Members from all parties are too.
  6.6 pm
  Mrs. May: I join the Secretary of State in his congratulations to the members of the Committee on the thoughtful and careful way in which they considered the Bill. It was a good example of the way in which the House works at its best. As he suggested, such work is not always seen by those outside this building. I also include in my congratulations the Members of another place who started the work on this Bill; after all, much of the work was carried out there. They should be congratulated on the thoughtful consideration that they gave to the Bill.
  As the Secretary of State said, we all have the same aim. It is to try to improve the educational opportunities for disabled children and to ensure that children with special educational needs have their needs properly provided for, so that they can develop to their full potential and in a way that is right for them.
  It is unfortunate that some Labour Members have sometimes appeared to suggest that anyone who questioned any part of the Bill was against disabled children and wanted to destroy the concept of inclusion in mainstream schools. Nothing is further from the truth. It is essential that we get such a Bill right, and essential for the interests of children that their needs are met. We must ensure that what we do in the House, albeit with the best of intentions, does not, inadvertently or otherwise,
  530
  act against the interests of children. That is why it was necessary to ensure that the Bill received careful scrutiny, and to consider the implications of its implementation.
  There is no doubt that in the past, some children with special educational needs who would have benefited from education in a mainstream school setting have been denied such education. It is entirely right that we should attempt to ensure through legislation that no children lose out in that way in future. Those children for whom a mainstream education is right and appropriate and who would benefit from it should have such access. However, it is also true that education in mainstream schools for special educational needs children will often work only if the proper level of resources are provided to back up the support within the school. Otherwise, physical inclusion can become educational and social exclusion in the school—the Secretary of State provided an example.
  Therefore, we should be cautious and take note of the resource implications of the Bill. If it is to work well and if children with special educational needs are genuinely to be given the opportunities in mainstream schools from which they will benefit, resource provision needs to be made to support them. Without it, their experience in the mainstream school may be far worse than it would be in alternative provision. I make that point because the issue of resources was not addressed in the debates in the Chamber as fully as it might have been. I recognise that it was considered in Committee, but the question of resources has not been brought to the fore as much as it should have been on Second Reading, or, for the obvious reason that we had to consider specific amendments and new clauses, on Report.
  Some children with special educational needs will certainly benefit from the opportunity that the Bill provides to be in a mainstream school. However, we must accept that for others the special school environment is right and appropriate. Labour Members, including the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith)—in her response to new clause 2, I think—said that it was scaremongering to suggest that special schools were closing, and that that was not the intention. However, many local authorities are using the push for inclusion of SEN children in mainstream schools as a means of reducing numbers in special schools, which they then close.
  I have met parents throughout the country who are worried that the intentions behind those decisions by some local authorities are not always driven by the best interests of children, but by the efficiency of being able to close a school, perhaps because the site can then be sold and the asset realised. That is unfortunate. We must send a clear message that what matters is providing for the needs of children. We must make it clear that we do not want local authorities or others to think that they are being pressed to meet a political agenda on inclusion instead of making decisions on inclusion that are in the best interests of children.
  In the debate on new clause 2, I referred to Old House school in Twickenham, which I visited only yesterday. It is for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In my experience, schools for EBD children and children with moderate learning difficulties find that the greatest pressure to close comes from local authorities. In the case of Old House school, the local authority has stopped statementing and referring children to the school in recent

  531
  years. The numbers have dwindled to the point at which the authority can say, "Well, we need to do something about the school because it has such low numbers."
  That practice is going on, and it puts pressure on special schools. Parents are concerned that their children are not being properly provided for. Teachers are worried not only about their situation, but about children for whom the particular expertise that they need is not available from teaching staff. They fear that children will not be able to make the best of their educational opportunities because of the closure of special schools.
  Teacher training has been mentioned in various debates, although it did not receive much of an airing today. An important aspect of providing places in mainstream schools for children with special educational needs—notwithstanding additional support that they might receive from classroom or special needs assistants—is ensuring that teachers have the expertise necessary to encourage, help and support the children in their classes.
  We need to examine the provision of special needs training within the teacher training curriculum. Some people have told me that only half a day was spent on special needs during their teacher training. That is wrong, and we need to ensure that teachers receive much more training so that they can meet the needs of children with special needs who are in their classes. If that is not done well, children with special needs will be in a class, but not receiving the education that they deserve and that we would wish them to have.
  The whole point about providing extra access to mainstream schools is to enable children to have the best education. It must meet their needs and ensure that they develop their full potential. That has been the aim of the amendments and new clauses that we tabled in both Houses. The Bill aims to improve educational opportunities for children, and we have tried to ensure at all times that we do just that. We do not want clauses that can have a counterproductive interpretation or attitude taken towards them.
  Attitude is of course very important, and I am sure that all hon. Members are struck by the experience of mainstream schools that have included children with special educational needs, in particular disabled children. Those schools say that inclusion is a benefit not only for individual children, in that it improves their educational opportunities, but for other children in the class. That experience benefits not only that educational environment, but society as a whole.
  It is important that we improve opportunities for disabled children and provide for the needs of children with special educational needs, but in doing so we need to keep a balanced provision. We need to ensure that parents can choose between mainstream and special schools, and that special schools do not close because local authorities believe that they should meet a political agenda rather than the needs of children. In everything we do, we must ensure that we are genuinely improving educational opportunities for children and meeting their needs.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Berry: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, but I should like to make three brief points.
  532
  Throughout Report, and so far on Third Reading, too, hon. Members have concentrated almost entirely on part 1, which deals with special educational needs. Part 2 is concerned with attacking discrimination in education on grounds of disability. How welcome it is that we finally have provision to make unfair discrimination unlawful not only in the schools sector but in further and higher education. The Bill corrects a major deficiency of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—the exclusion of education from part III of that Act, which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services.
  The previous Government's arguments were that education had to be excluded because it was dealt with in other legislation, and because the money would be spread too thinly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to things in print that people might regret, and when I popped out for a sandwich half an hour ago, I read part of the report of the Committee proceedings on the Disability Discrimination Bill, during which some pretty strange arguments were given for excluding education. I am delighted that this Bill will ensure that disabled people have the same rights and opportunities in education as they have elsewhere in society.
  Secondly, I congratulate the Government not only on the high priority that they have given the Bill, but on the extensive consultation that has taken place. I shall not labour the point because I did so on Second Reading. It is difficult—indeed, impossible—to find any organisation of disabled people, parents or teachers, inside and outside special education, who do not welcome the Bill. They want it to be enacted as soon as possible.
  Before 3 May, some organisations asked me whether the Bill would be passed before the general election. I suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might have thought of that possibility and that provision might have been made to ensure that the Bill would be passed before any general election. The consultation exercise had been so extensive and had commanded such popular support that the Special Educational Consortium and other groups were afraid that the Bill might not get through. I am delighted that it looks as if it will be passed before the next general election.
  Thirdly, the Bill is clearly part of the Government's policy to implement our commitment at the last general election to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. Part 2 is an absolutely fundamental part of meeting that commitment. That is welcome, and is part of the wider agenda on disability rights, including the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, the new deal for disabled people, the disabled persons tax credit and so on.
  Of course, there is still a lot to do. I have many concerns about charging disabled people for personal services—which perhaps the next Government will address more vigorously than has been done so far. By any fair assessment, the Bill and other measures introduced by the Government seeking to secure equal rights and opportunities for disabled people have made a break with history. Progress over the past four years has been dramatic and fundamental. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and all those who have helped to introduce the Bill and the other measures. Today, many disabled people will celebrate the fact that the Bill and the other Government measures have reached the statute book.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: You will appreciate more than most, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my parliamentary duties in other Committees prevented me from serving on the Committee that considered the Bill. However, I pay tribute to those on both sides of the House who did so, as it is clear that a great deal of hard work has gone into the Bill.
  I have followed the progress of the Bill through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament with great interest and have participated on the rare occasions on which I have been able to do so. I did that because I have particular constituency interest in the Royal School for Deaf Children in Margate, in my constituency of North Thanet. I am therefore a parliamentary supporter of NASS—the National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools—which has made representations to me and, through my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and me, to the Committee and Ministers.
  After all that hard work, I am left with two areas of considerable unease. It was plain in exchanges earlier this afternoon on new clause 2 that, in spite of fine words, there is a hidden agenda which says "Mainstream good, special school bad", or at least, "Mainstream good and preferable, special school under some circumstances, if all else fails." That is unacceptable and I share the view expressed by the Prime Minister's wife, Cherie Booth—as she liked to be known when she fought the North Thanet parliamentary seat in 1983—when she recently visited Gap House school in Thanet. After her visit, she told the local press that mainstream education was not suitable for every child.
  I agree entirely, and I did not get the feeling from Government Members who responded to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that they believed what they said. As I said, I have followed the debate very carefully indeed. Not every child is suited to mainstream education and not every mainstream school is suitable to provide for the needs of children with SEN. It is a case of horses for courses and using existing facilities, whether in the maintained or non-maintained sector. The hearing-impaired unit at Hampton primary school in my constituency, for example, provides in excellent facility; it is underused because there appears to be an imperative to send children to the school of parental choice which may, or may not, be able to provide for them and may not have the facilities that Hampton primary school can provide for hearing-impaired children.
  A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said that special schools feel that they are under threat. Indeed they do Gap House school, which the Prime Minister's wife visited, feels under threat, as does Foreland school. Rightly or wrongly, they feel that the Bill sends out the message that mainstream education is preferable at all costs. Inevitably, that means that some special schools will close.
  Ms Rachel Squire indicated dissent.
  Mr. Gale: It is no good the hon. Lady shaking her head; my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough read from teachers' letters this afternoon. Labour Members did not like what he said, but he merely expressed what
  534
  teachers were saying. I am merely voicing concerns expressed by those who speak with practical experience on the ground. The fear is there. The Bill will go through, but we shall watch carefully. When in government, we shall change it if it has the effect that some of us fear it may have.
  I shall deal briefly with the position of the non-maintained schools. There is a feeling on the part of NASS that their voice has not been properly heard. I hope and believe that, even at this stage, Ministers and particularly the Secretary of State will meet NASS to discuss its concerns.
  I want to place on the record the comments made to me in a letter by David Bond, who is the absolutely excellent principal and director of the Royal School for Deaf Children. He states:
  "There remains a danger that pupils with very low incidence disabilities will be overlooked, until it is too late. We"—
  that is, the Royal School for Deaf Children—
  "continue to experience the aftermath of some apparently 'overlooked' and apparently unplanned and under-funded 'inclusive' provision for pupils with sensory impairments who have additional disabilities. This includes pupils who come to us with significant emotional behavioural problems, which in some cases might have been preventable".
  Mr. Bond continues:
  "I am still seeing and hearing from parents who have not been advised about the existence of Non-Maintained Special Schools, when the Non-Maintained Special School may well have been the best provision available for their deaf child who has additional special needs."
  The letter goes on:
  "Because of their deafness there is very often a delay in the verbal educational skills development of deaf people, and it is for this reason that they require specialist provision or support in ordinary education via facilities and services for deaf people. Settings which are not appropriate for deaf pupils and students will damage their linguistic, communication and verbal educational development if the support is inadequate or if the difference between the deaf child and his or her peers is too great, i.e. if the deaf child is unable to identify with or to communicate effectively with his or her peers."
  Mr. Bond continues:
  "We also see damage to the deaf person's mental health—hence deaf pupils become more vulnerable in respect of their mental health (a deaf child is at least 1.5-2 times or more likely to develop mental health problems than a hearing child). The lifelong cost to the individual and to society is substantial, particularly when the risk can be reduced substantially by ensuring appropriate provision and support. Some of those issues highlight the importance of ensuring optimum use is made of expertise in the Non-Maintained sector."
  As I said, I have listened to the debates relating to the Bill and have participated in some of them. I remain of the view that the opinions expressed by NASS have not been taken on board, and that there is a bias against the non-maintained sector. I note in passing that there is a strong bias against parents who choose to send their special needs children to private schools. Those parents and those schools receive no support from the state.
  I urge Ministers, when the Bill is on the statute book, to meet NASS and listen to its views. Instead of shunning the provisions offered by the non-maintained sector, they should recognise its value, harness its expertise, and use it to the benefit of the people who matter most, the special educational needs children—not the parents, not the local authority and not the Government.
  6.28 pm
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Most of us who have a long-term interest in special educational needs will look back to the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and realise that that was a time of great change. Children who would otherwise be relegated to their home were suddenly brought out by the Warnock report and offered an opportunity that they had not had before. The Warnock report was a great turning point and brought about important changes. Subsequently, there was a period of settling down. Since the inception of the present Government, there has been a great surge of provision for people with disability and for people with learning difficulties, and no more so than in education for children.
  Reference was made earlier to statements being used rather like a weapon by parents. The Bill is not a weapon, but a tool whereby authorities will take forward an agenda and offer parents, families and communities provision for children, irrespective of their ability. Many of us were left with a deep anxiety that, during the 1990s, children with learning difficulties had to accept provision that was substantially poorer than that for other children.
  The Bill is one of a series of steps towards redressing that imbalance. I think that a lot more needs to be done. The Bill allows children with learning difficulties to enter mainstream schools, but many of us will want to know that the quality of provision in those schools is as good for such children as it is for those without their needs. There is currently a great disparity. I look forward to the day when there is equal provision, when teachers receive appropriate training that can be measured and which parents understand and appreciate, and when there is greater inclusion, which is what the Bill provides.
  6.31 pm
  Dr. Harris: I, too, welcome the prospect of a successful Third Reading. The Secretary of State was right to say that the Bill was unlikely to have received much attention from the media and little general comment outside the House, but people whose lives are touched by the issues with which it deals will know that those issues are debated relatively rarely. In that respect, the Bill has been a good vehicle for debating many matters that are related to special educational needs provision. That was not least the case in the House of Lords, whose numbers meant that useful concessions were extracted from the Government on reviewing how some of the provisions would be put into practice. Fruitful negotiations were also pursued in the other place about the wording of the code of practice on special educational needs.
  The Standing Committee was an enjoyable one on which to serve. The tone of the debate was made possible by the contributions of Ministers, Back Benchers and the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is a model of courtesy and erudition—a word that I used when I did not understand some of his classical allusions.
  A number of recurrent themes have arisen during debate on the Bill. They include the important point that was made earlier by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who is no longer in his place. In a Third Reading-style contribution, he said that the Bill might be
  536
  seen to lead to integration in the mainstream sector at a pace that was too quick to be tolerated by the people who were hostile to it. He spoke about a school with a relatively large number of children who have special educational needs. One has to be careful before basing policy on attempts to meet—"appease" is too strong a word—the concerns of those who might be hostile to it. We do not have to look far back in history to find analogies with racial integration and to see that Governments and legislators sometimes have to lead public opinion when the evidence shows that what is being done is right.
  There are questions about the effective education of other children when those with severe disabilities or challenging behaviour are brought into a mainstream setting, but the enormous contribution of inclusivity to the social development of all children has far too often been lost in some of our debates. Of course, Front Benchers of all parties have raised that issue, but many Back Benchers, especially in the Conservative party, have stressed the problems rather than the opportunities that are created by integration.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made an important point about resources. She knows that the Liberal Democrats share her concern about the need for adequate resources. I say to Ministers that it will be important to ensure that the adequacy of resources is not judged by input and the recitation of figures, which can be seen as more or less impressive, depending on the analysis. They should try instead to judge the need for resources and then see whether it can be matched. Any shortfall in a cash-limited system should be acknowledged. Research into resource needs, outside a feverish pre-election setting in which we all debate tax and spend, will be useful.
  The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) eloquently drew attention to the threat to special schools. I believe that it is important to provide enough special school places locally to meet need. That does not mean that every existing school, some with buildings that are perhaps unsatisfactory, will survive. Some special schools will close while others are built. Sufficient places are the main requirement. When we consider hospitals, the number of beds is more important than the number of buildings. We must be wedded to the concept of provision, not buildings.
  The number of places has remained more or less the same in the past 10 years. That will also be the case after the Bill is enacted. Advances in medical science mean that more severely disabled children, who previously would not have survived, are included in the education system. Stable numbers therefore probably mean greater integration. However, integration is generally inadequate.
  The Bill and the attendant resources will not be a panacea. It is important to acknowledge that local authorities that are not only cash strapped but capped will find it difficult to statement quickly and make adequate provision for special support. The reviews and research are therefore especially important. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made the point that special schools—and mains ream schools that specialise in SEN provision—can be centres of research. We can learn from their experience.

  537
  I am grateful for the important clarification that resources will not be a barrier to integrating children or placing them in SEN settings, with the caveat that such provision must be efficient. Again, it will be important to monitor and collect data from tribunals to ascertain the way in which the measure is bedding down.
  I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on part 2. The Bill will be of great benefit and will be broadly welcomed. I welcome the constructive contributions by Members of all parties.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Levitt: I shall make one of the briefest contributions to the debate. I want to take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) that, in Committee, I made many of the points that he raised about the education of deaf children. I reminded the Committee that the Government took action two years ago to save a school that educates deaf children in a sign language environment and was threatened with closure. The replies that Ministers gave in Committee satisfied me, and I speak as a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People.
  It has been a privilege to contribute to all stages of the Bill. I should like to thank the Government in the manner that some of my deaf friends would wish, in sign language. I am signing, "Thank you for the Special Needs and Disability Bill." Let us see how Hansard reports that!
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I cannot follow that, so I shall speak in the normal way, if that is acceptable.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), I feel a little uneasy about the Bill, as I have said previously. My unease is based partly on one or two words in the measure—and, indeed, on some matters that are not included—and partly on the Bill's tone. The assumptions in it are worrying.
  The Bill depends heavily on statementing. This morning, I received a letter from the worried parent of a child with special needs that said that statementing was all very well, but that its effectiveness depended on the amount of detail in specifying the requirements of each child. Of course, that is extremely it important. It would be very easy for statements to be prepared for children that would give them the opportunity to go to special schools. However, if those statements were not properly prepared, the child would end up at the wrong school. That is an aspect of the Bill about which I am very concerned.
  The tone of the Bill, and the motivation for it, also worry me. Having sat through the Second Reading debate, and been privileged to serve on the Standing Committee, I have been concerned about a number of its aspects. There has almost been an assumption that all children are clamouring and absolutely desperate to be included in mainstream schools. There is no doubt that some are. Many children are already included in mainstream schools and there is no doubt that there have been some, in the past, who should have gone to mainstream schools but did not.
  There is, however, another side to that argument. An awful lot of children are desperately frightened of being sent to mainstream schools, and they will not be particularly reassured by the Bill. We have heard many
  538
  sad examples, particularly in Committee, of children being excluded from mainstream schools and suffering as a result. We also heard of children with special needs going to mainstream schools and benefiting from it. Hon. Members have given very real examples, but there are also examples illustrating the other side of the argument, in which children have been sent to mainstream schools that have palpably failed them. I was surprised but pleased to hear the Secretary of State give an example of a child who was sent to a mainstream school but, at that point in his education, it was not right for him.
  We can all quote examples such as that, but they are not all one-sided. Many people who have been to see me and other hon. Members are desperately frightened of being sent to a mainstream school because they and their parents know that they need to go to a special school.
  On Second Reading, I rather unkindly, but probably accurately, described parts of the Bill as a triumph of theory over reality. I regret having had to say that, and I would not have said it, had not my experiences in Gloucestershire taught me that it is the case. It is no use Ministers saying that the Bill, and previous statements on it, are not a green light for the wholesale closure of special schools, because that is what is happening in Gloucestershire. There is a systematic closure of special schools. [Interruption.] Labour Members are speaking from sedentary positions. If they want to come to Gloucestershire to see what is going on, I would be delighted to pick them up at the station and take them to the schools, to show them the feeling there.
  Laura Moffatt: If, as the hon. Gentleman states, the wholesale closure of special schools is happening now, how can he presume that the Bill will have the effect of causing that?
  Mr. Robertson: I said that that was happening in Gloucestershire. I cannot speak for what is happening in Lancashire or Yorkshire. As it is the Liberal Democrat and Labour alliance in Gloucestershire that is closing the schools, it is up to that alliance to explain why it is drawing the inference from the Government's actions that it is drawing. It is not for me, as a Conservative Member, to try to interpret the Bill or the reasons why the alliance is closing special schools in Gloucestershire. Bownham Park school in Stroud is under threat of closure. The notice has been served. I cannot explain why that is so, but that is the reality. Ministers have to accept that reality.
  We have discussed whether resources will follow children, and whether sufficient resources will be put in. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made those important points. I have a further fear, also based on my experience in Gloucestershire. Rather than the resources following the pupils to the mainstream schools, quite the reverse can happen. Some local authorities are trying to close special schools to save money. Far from the resources following the children, the special schools are under threat of closure in Gloucestershire to save money.
  To prove my point, the former director of education in Gloucestershire let slip a comment at a meeting that he had forgotten, for a moment, that I was attending. When challenged about saving money on the education budget, he said that, through the SEN programme, he was doing his damnedest. I rest my case.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Boswell: This has been—perhaps predictably, but certainly agreeably—a pleasant debate on a series of important issues involving parents, children with special educational needs and wider educational aspects. It has been very much in keeping with our earlier deliberations on the Bill.
  The House may need to be reminded of what I consider to have been the most striking remark of the day. It was, I believe, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) who pointed out that this was a debating Chamber, that it was necessary for issues to be raised in it, and that, just occasionally, we might need to disagree.
  I certainly consider it incumbent on those of us who have a reputation, however ill-justified, for being broadly in the consensus stream of politics to bear it in mind when we are passing what might be loosely described as consensus legislation—in an atmosphere of good will and general bonhomie—that, on certain occasions, that is not the right thing to do. The example of the Child Support Agency demonstrates that we must not take our eye off the ball, and must not forget our obligation to consider issues in detail.
  I am now learning—not least from experience relating to what is now the Learning and Skills Act 2000—how to consider Bills that have already been considered in another place. Historically, we have tended to rely on the other place to tidy up after our mess; in some instances, especially that of this Bill, we are then faced with the task of validating the good work done there, which is perhaps more agreeable but is occasionally more inhibiting.
  Consideration of the Bill has been, in a sense, politically anaesthetised from the start. That could have created an invidious situation, although I do not think it has done so in the event. Faced with the threat of the ultimate test outside this place—that of a general election—Ministers have put it about that if one jot or tittle of the Bill were altered, that might threaten its passage. I do not suggest that the SEN consortium is unduly credulous, but Ministers have certainly persuaded the consortium that that may happen.
  On Second Reading—doing, I modestly hope, our job as Her Majesty's Opposition—we tabled a reasoned amendment expressing our main concerns about the Bill. The Government went around saying, "If you take any notice of these people, the whole thing will fall down flat." I think that on the whole we, as well as the Government, are relieved that that did not happen, that we have had proper discussions, and that we have made some progress.
  I must add, however—in the spirit of our consideration—that the Opposition have not succeeded in amending the Bill. We have tried to do so, and we have had some interesting debates, but the Government have persisted in their policy of no change. One element—I acknowledged this in Committee, and I do so again—is that, in comparison with one or two other Bills that I may name later, this Bill is comparatively coherent and well drafted. I realise—I hope that Ministers do as well—that there may be some awful man trap in the detail, which we have not spotted so far. It is possible, for instance, that
  540
  the schedule in the Bill that amends schedule 27 to the 1996 Act will cause great grief later. As far as we can see, however, the Bill is coherent and sensible. I hope that that will speed the Bill's passage, and ease its implementation.
  Let me give encomiums where they are due. The Under-Secretaries the hon. Members for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) and for Barking (Ms Hodge)—the Ministers who handled the Bill in Committee—Labour Back Benchers, and Liberal Democrat Members have all done their best to be both conciliatory and, on the whole, receptive to points made by my hon. Friends and me and, indeed, by other Committee members. There has been a sense of a working session, in which serious assurances have been both sought and, in general, received. That is also a good omen for the way in which matters will proceed in the future.
  I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for sharing the burden in Committee with me, and to my Back Bench colleagues for the way in which they made their points. That also applies to Back Benchers who have contributed to this debate, because it is important—even when we broadly agree on objectives and wish to be as conciliatory as we can—that we should have opportunities for Members to record, accommodate and consider their concerns so that they can be properly addressed and, if necessary, remedied. For example, this afternoon we had an interesting debate on the role of the inspectorate. The most important outcome of today's deliberations should not be our clucking about the great advance we have achieved—although we have done so—but a determination to make something of the matter in the future and to continue to attend to problems and difficulties as they arise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) has a particular constituency, as well as personal, interest in non-maintained and special education, and he performed a valuable service by making his point. Indeed, one of the points that I had noted for mention tonight was my concern that the National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools still had some outstanding problems with the Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree to the suggestion of a meeting with the association. A communication problem appears to have arisen with the eastern regional consortium, and concerns have been expressed that some local authorities may have hidden agendas—although no one alleges that the Minister shares them—to try to exclude the non-maintained sector from consideration. It is important that parents have a right to know about non-maintained schools and that such provision should be secured, if it is most appropriate for the child. That returns me to the particular and entirely proper insistence by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that the rights of the child should come first.
  The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) mentioned the civil rights aspect of the legislation, which we tend to overlook. When I was in government, we were aware of difficulties with that aspect—not least that of resources and, in some cases, of governance—but it is time to move on to include education in the civil rights agenda, given that the Disability Rights Commission and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 have now bedded

  541
  down. The Conservatives have no problem conceptually with that, we wish it well and we hope that it will work as well as it has done in other sectors so far.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) expressed passionate reservations about the provision of special schools in his constituency and local education authority. We feel a certain unease in detail but generally accept the common aspiration to move towards inclusion wherever possible and to ensure that it works. However, therein lies the rub for the future. We can all get together in an atmosphere of consensus, but we must also recognise that we cannot achieve our aims just by aspiration and fine words. Much hard work and resources must go into achieving it. From the experience of the parents of children in special education, or those with special needs who are included, practitioners and some local education authorities, several problems still have not yet been ironed out and the Bill will not automatically remove them. There will have to be continuing work in looking at local authorities that do less well, individual schools that are failing or examples of inclusion that are not as good as they should be. Other specific areas of special need should be considered; Of sted's current attention to the autism spectrum, for example, will need proper exploration. That work must be done; it cannot simply be wished that through on the basis of our good will.
  When we began considering the Bill in this place, after their Lordships had considered it, we had substantial reservations. There has been some progress in meeting those reservations, and we are glad about that. However, we continue to have some reservations about the practical delivery of this measure and its future resourcing.
  Inclusion is a fine aspiration. I have often said that even if children with special educational needs are not included in school they are, by definition, included in life, and will have to come to terms with an adult world that is not always receptive to them. We have to find ways through this, but simply talking about inclusion as a kind of totem or as an aspiration that can be delivered automatically or on the cheap is not sufficient. We must ensure that it works.
  I indicated earlier that I might have some news for the House. I am conscious of what the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has said what has been said during the Bill's proceedings, the strong interest of the educational needs consortium and, indeed, the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings in special education. That goes across the House. We are not in the business of making difficulties unnecessarily or of subverting legislation unless it is imperative to do so. We have a common objective, which is to serve the needs of children with special educational needs. In conclusion, we may be able, if not positively to assist the Government, at least not to resist them on Third Reading tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Football World Cup (Television Coverage)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
6.57 pm
Mr. John Grogan: During the last football World cup in 1998, there was an average of 600 million viewers worldwide per match, with a total of 37 billion viewers worldwide for the tournament. In Bayswater, where I rent my London flat, a multitude of restaurants serve cuisine from all around the globe, encompassing every taste from Spanish to Brazilian to Japanese to Iranian. During the 1998 finals, every one of them seemed to have installed one or two ordinary television sets for the month of the tournament to cheer on the wide variety of teams of their choice and to animate their customers evenings.
FIFA is the custodian of this great international tradition. However, two years before the France 1998 World cup, on 5 July 1996, FIFA brought shame upon that tradition and upon themselves when its executive, by nine votes to six, with three abstentions, voted to sell the European television rights to the 2002 and 2006 tournaments to the German media entrepreneur Kirch and the worldwide rights to his associates, ISL. It stipulated only that the final, semi-finals and any match featuring the national team should be on terrestrial television. The other 50 to 60 matches could be sold off to subscription television.
The press release subsequently issued by Kirch's agents, Prisma, is remarkable in that it begins with a couple of paragraphs praising the impact of the coverage of past tournaments on terrestrial television. It said:
"Following the record television ratings for France 98, with audiences of up to 80% of the market share in leading European football nations, the FIFA World Cup proved again that it is the most compelling television spectacle on earth.
World cup football transcends all other football. It consolidates audiences like no other sport, with breathtaking viewing figures that add up in billions. It is watched by men and women, by children and grandparents. It appeals to all kinds of people, from every walk of life"—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr.Mike Hall.]
Mr. Grogan: The press release continues:
"It can empty the streets of traffic. It can fill major cities with jubilant fans."
The release has a cynical punch line, however. It states:
"The 2002 FIFA World Cup will be more widely available to broadcasters than ever before … The drama and excitement, the universal appeal and commercial potential of the 2002 FIFA World Cup are now available to broadcasters throughout Europe."
There is no mention of fans or viewers. The key word in the press release is "broadcasters". By its own admission, FIFA was prepared to sell out billions of ordinary viewers to court a handful of subscription television companies, whose agenda was clear.
That action is in sharp contrast to that taken by the International Olympic Committee, which has adopted a principle of making the summer and winter Olympic

543
games as widely available as possible. It also contrasts with the decision of UEFA, which has sold on the rights to the next two European football championships, beginning with the 2004 tournament in Portugal, to the European Broadcasting Union. That will ensure that everyone with a basic television—young or old, rich or poor, in Manchester, Munich or Milan—will be able to see all the action.
It is worth remembering that, in recent months, FIFA officials have been courting Europe's political leaders on other matters, such as help over transfer fees. Millions of pounds of public and lottery money throughout Europe goes into building football stadiums. Would not it be timely for European Governments or the European Parliament to suggest to FIFA that it might be in its own long-term interests to show a more responsible attitude when it gets around to considering future broadcasting rights?
Fortunately, the United Kingdom has a long tradition—going back to the Eden Administration in the 1950s—of protecting for the nation the broadcasting of the crown jewels of sport. That relatively modest intervention in the market is designed to ensure that we can all enjoy and share in the great sporting events of national or international importance. It allows us to experience the tension and excitement together, and to be part, for a little while, of something bigger. It means that we can all, in some way, be in the ground or stadium where an event is taking place.
If the great sporting occasions were not free to all, that feeling—that frisson—would be lost. Many people would merely hear the cheers coming over the wall, and for the majority the result might well mean exclusion from the stadium altogether. Among the people so excluded might be the children who could grow up to be tomorrow's stars.
The precise list of the crown jewel sporting events to be protected has been amended and reviewed down the years. The entire football World cup finals tournament has been listed since at least the prime of Baroness Thatcher in the 1980s. In 1997, the new Government instituted a review of the listed events and set up a committee under Lord Gordon. That committee suggested delisting the bulk of the World cup finals tournaments. In my opinion, it badly misjudged public and parliamentary opinion. The 1998 tournament reminded us all of the thrill and joy of watching teams such as Brazil and Cameroon, regardless of who they were playing against. It also reminded us that, despite Lord Tebbit's cricket test, many British citizens, as well as keeping an eye on England's fortunes, wanted to check on Jamaica, which was making its first appearance in the World cup finals.
Wisely, Parliament decided to maintain the protection of the listed events legislation for the whole of the World cup finals. That list was subsequently ratified by the European Commission under the relevant clauses of the TV without frontiers directive, whereby members of the European Union agreed to respect each others lists.
It is true that different nations place different weights on the importance of the various events. No other European nation lists the finals tournament in its entirety as Britain does, but some—such as Denmark, for example—go further than we do in other respects. Denmark has decided, unlike Britain, that all World cup
544
matches—even those in the qualifying rounds—that involve the home nation must be shown on terrestrial television in Denmark. Outside Europe, the Australians passion for sport means that they list nearly 50 events—including, incidentally, our own FA cup final.
It is important that rightholders respect the law of the land of the different countries to which they want to sell their products. Contrary to some claims, Kirch knew full well in 1996, when he did the deal with FIFA, what British law consisted of—if he overbid for the rights, that is essentially his problem.
No one is saying that Kirsch has to give away the rights for free. Under the terms of the legislation, any deal which involved any exclusive element of live coverage of the World cup for subscription television would be subject to the agreement of the Independent Television Commission. The ITC would have to be convinced that the terrestrial broadcasters had been offered the event at a fair and reasonable price. Under the terms of the legislation, they would take into account previous fees for the event or similar events, the time of day for live coverage of the event, the revenue or audience potential associated with the live transmission of the event, the period for which the rights were offered, and competition in the marketplace.
The BBC and ITV have, according to newspaper reports, made a bid of £50 million for the 2002 finals. This may not be the £150 million to £200 million for which the Kirch Group was hoping, but it is 10 times what was paid in 1998. Given that during the 2002 finals in Japan and Korea most of the matches, instead of preceding or following on nicely from "Eastenders" and "Coronation Street" in prime time—as happened in 1998 in France—will be in the middle of the night, £50 million sounds reasonable. It also seems reasonable that ITV and BBC, to find this considerable sum, should pool their sport budgets to make a joint bid.
The Kirch Group is having none of all that. It has written to all interested Members of Parliament saying that it wants to start an auction process. It is widely rumoured and feared that Kirch is waiting for an election to be called before beginning the auction. Moreover, the group has claimed to have started proceedings in the European Court of First Instance to challenge the whole concept and scope of the United Kingdom's list. Fortunately, the Government have been robust in their assertions that our law must prevail. Moreover, in recent days Sky Sports has declared that it is not interested in participating in any auction for the World cup rights. Vic Wakeling, head of Sky Sports, told the Financial Times on 23 April:
"We're not going to be used just because they've overvalued the European rights for the event without doing their homework. You've got two broadcasters (BBC and ITV) who, between them, have got a lot of money. They've winced at the price and I don't blame them. I think the price Kirch wants is absolutely outrageous—we wouldn't pay that sort of money even if we were allowed to."
It is interesting to note that Sky, which has made an enormous contribution to the televising of sport during the past 10 years, has thrived despite the listed events, the concept of which it opposed in 1997. As Wakeling sees it in the Financial Times interview:
"we've never gone for a listed event. It's the consistent coverage of a particular sport which has helped us"
drive subscribers,
"not the listed events."

545
The issue of the television coverage of the next two World cups has become a major one in several European countries. In Spain, World cup rights have been sold to a satellite company called Via Digital. In Germany itself, where there are no listed events, the issue is even more sensitive. Chancellor Schroeder's Government put considerable pressure on the terrestrial broadcasters which have paid Kirch over DM500 million just for live coverage of 24 of the 62 matches in 2002, with only a possible option on covering 2006. Consequently, although Germany beat England for the rights to stage the World cup in 2006, ordinary Germans may be able to watch only a handful of matches on television compared with United Kingdom citizens, even though millions of deutschmarks of taxes will have been spent on the stadiums. Not surprisingly, in Germany a campaign is starting to have a similar list of crown jewels to that which we currently enjoy. British football fans of both the fanatical and casual variety will not rest easy until Kirch signs a deal with the BBC and ITV. It is clearly in the interests of the company to come to a deal without unnecessary delay.
In another field, the company has already been forced to retreat from its plans to transfer Formula 1 racing to subscription television because of pressure from car manufacturers. Further damaging publicity could make the Kirch Group public enemy No. 1 among sports fans across Europe.
FIFA, too, needs to step in and sort out this problem. In recent days, Neil Wilson of the Daily Mail has brilliantly exposed how ISL—F1FA's agents who handle television rights outside Europe—is close to bankruptcy. Apparently, Latin American television companies paid up to $100 million to ISL accounts that have been frozen due to the company's horrendous debts. Rumours abound that the Kirch Group itself is in some financial trouble. Both Kirch and ISL have made promises to FIFA that they may be unable to fulfil.
It is possible that, on Wednesday 6 June, England will play Greece in a crucial World cup qualifier. I say "possible" because, as of half an hour ago, FIFA had still not decided whether to kick Greece out of the tournament because of various irregularities. Hopefully, that match will go ahead on 6 June. If it does, it is possible that the following day—7 June—will be one of more than usual political significance. Harold Wilson always blamed—at least in part—England's defeat by Germany in the 1970 World cup for his own subsequent loss at the polls. As a Member holding what could be considered by some people a marginal seat, I will thus have a double reason to cheer on England loudly on 6 June, should the match take place. The good news is that I shall be able to watch the match live on terrestrial television—the BBC on this occasion. I only hope that the same will be true of the final of the World cup tournament next year. The matter is certainly not one of life or death, but for many ordinary people it is of some importance.
7.11 pm
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for allowing me to say a few words. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby on initiating the debate.
I speak as a football supporter—a fanatical one; as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are different types. I speak also as an officer of the all-party football group. As nearly
546
a third of parliamentarians are members of the all-party group, we like to think that we are the voice of football supporters in the House.
I begin my remarks with a quotation from Mr. Greg Dyke, the Director-General of the BBC, who spoke at the European Broadcasting Union conference on 27 March. He said:
"Of course the real villain of the piece is FIFA who sold to Kirch instead of the EBU. I do grow tired of certain hypocritical sports rights holders who, on the one hand, speak of the importance of universal access and the significance of their events being open and available to all while at the same time selling their rights to the highest bidder regardless of their commitment to those same principles."
The problems that we face in this country about televising the 2002 World cup have been caused by FIFA, whose responsibility as guardian of the world game should be first to football fans and football supporters. It is possible that only four of the 64 matches will actually be shown on terrestrial television in the United Kingdom, if England and Scotland do not qualify and others buy the rights. That is a scandal, so it is right and proper that we are holding this debate, especially as matches between countries in the 1998 World cup drew audiences well in excess of 7 million—and very reasonable they were too.
FIFA's handling of the television rights issue has been a shambles—as has its marketing. On Friday 20 April, The Guardian stated:
"Fifa's plans for the next World Cup are in chaos following the sacking of the tournament's marketing chief … The ISL fiasco has added to the growing criticism of Fifa's handling of the 2002 World Cup."
The article also makes the interesting revelation that
"Kirch is sweeping the UK auction under the carpet until the general election is over."
I do not think that Kirch is waiting until then; it is waiting until the House is not sitting. Kirch is waiting for that moment to take the opportunity to go to auction over the television rights.
I shall briefly address the issue about FIFA, and the sheer arrogance shown by leading members of it. The general secretary, Michel Zen-Ruffinen, said in Edinburgh:
"There has been a misunderstanding that all matches were available to be sold to subscription or satellite TV channels, but this is not the case. We want the finals to be seen by as many millions of people as possible."
His view about finals is simple. He is talking about the World cup final itself. In this country, when we talk about the World cup finals we mean every match, because all football fans, whether fanatics like me or casual supporters like other hon. Members, want to see those during the World cup.
I very much hope that tonight the Minister can give us a real and absolute commitment to the 1998 listed events legislation and confirm that our Government, the Labour Government, will not be bullied by Kirch on this issue. We, the football fans throughout the United Kingdom, will stand up and say that the World cup in 2002 and in 2006 must be available across the UK on free-to-air TV. We can, as a House, send that clear message to Kirch tonight, and make it plain that, as The Guardian said, we do not want any auction swept under the carpet. Kirch should come clean and speak to the House of Commons, and specifically to Ministers, about its plans, which it has simply failed to do in the past few weeks.

547
Nine World cups have now been jointly covered by the BBC and ITV in this country, with growing audiences each time. It is clearly a successful formula for Britain, football fans and the United Kingdom. They say that football is the beautiful game. It is for me at the moment, because I am a Brighton and Hove Albion supporter, and not only have we been promoted but we are about to win our first championship for 36 years. But the World cup is the biggest event in football—the greatest football tournament in the world—and every single person in this country should be able to enjoy it on free-to-air television.
7.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House. I am only sorry that the Opposition Benches are empty, because I think it a matter of great importance to many people in this country. I am well aware of the considerable concern among Members of the House about television coverage of the football World cup finals tournament. That has been clear in the list of signatories to my hon. Friend's early-day motion on the subject, and I welcome the opportunity to address some of those concerns.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) for his contribution. He has freely admitted that he is a football fanatic. I could not describe myself in that way—although my two sons could probably be put in that category—but I should like to take the opportunity to wish Blackburn Rovers all the best for the coming Saturday and look forward to its promotion to the premiership, which is where it truly belongs.
We all know the importance of sport—and particularly of football, our national game—to the everyday life of so many people. We also know that the health of sport in this country depends to a great extent on the broadcasting sector. Television income is used to develop sport at all levels. A number of major United Kingdom sports invest a substantial proportion of broadcasting revenue at the grass roots under the Central Council of Physical Recreation's voluntary code on broadcasting. Sport has also been vital to the development of many new television services in recent years. The emerging success of digital television has been largely driven by subscription services and, in particular, by coverage of major sporting competitions. The nation has a great appetite for televised sport, and that shows no signs of abating.
The Government do not intervene unnecessarily in the sports broadcasting market. Our main concern is to ensure that everyone has access to those events which have a clear national resonance. Those events, including the World cup finals tournament, form part of the national calendar and make an important contribution to our sense of national identity. They are included in the list drawn up for the purposes of part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. Those listed events have a central place in our national life.
Although the broadcasting rights to those occasions are owned by governing bodies, many people regard them as public property. People have come to expect to be able to see those events covered live without having to pay extra for the privilege.
548
In relation to the World cup, listing seeks to ensure that free-to-air broadcasters, with a reach of at least 95 per cent. of the population, are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to acquire the rights to broadcast live coverage of such crown jewel events. At present, those broadcasters are the BBC, the ITV network and Channel 4. Listing does not guarantee that any event will he broadcast live. Rights holders are not required to sell live rights and broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them or to show the events. However, the legislation clearly stipulates that where live rights are made available for the World cup, they must be made available to free-to-air broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms.
The Independent Television Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with the 1996 Act and maintains a code on the operation of the legislation. Any United Kingdom broadcaster that obtains the rights to live coverage of the World cup cannot broadcast exclusively live in the UK without first seeking the consent of the ITC. The ITC will wish to be satisfied that broadcasters had a genuine opportunity to acquire the rights on fair and reasonable terms—it is important to emphasise that point—taking into account various criteria set out in its code.
There is no doubt that the World cup has a special place in the nation's heart, as my hon. Friends have mentioned. The whole tournament, which involved 64 matches in 1998, has been listed in its entirety since 1985. Interest in World cup matches goes well beyond those involving the home nations. FIFA requires that the opening game, the semi-finals and the final should be shown on free-to-air television, and we would expect those matches to attract large audiences in the UK and elsewhere, but the interest in many of the other matches is perhaps more surprising. During the 1998 tournament, the average UK viewing figure for all matches was 8.4 million. That is an astonishing figure and, even if the prime matches that I mentioned a moment ago are excluded, the average viewing figures for the rest was 6.7 million.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that the British Government are taking a robust position. Does she agree that the signal that a robust defence of this country's crown jewel matches would send to the world is important in ensuring that it is understood that sporting events across the world should not simply be hoovered up by those who wish to restrict viewing to a minority audience who happen to have the wherewithal to see them? Does she therefore agree that what she is talking about could well be of much greater significance than just to the viewing public in the UK?
Janet Anderson: Yes. I could not agree with my hon. Friend more, and I am grateful to him for making that point. I reassure him that the Government are taking a robust stance and that we will continue to do so. It is essential to protect those crown jewels, and I was interested that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby said that Germany is considering a similar system.
The figures for some individual games were remarkably high, with 10.2 million people watching Jamaica v. Croatia, 9.3 million tuning in to Morocco v. Norway and 9.8 million watching Germany v. Iran. Against that background, I can well understand the concern, expressed not only in the House, but among the general public—

549
hon. Members are reflecting the public's views—that UK viewers may be denied the opportunity to watch the whole of the 2002 World cup live on free-to-air television.
As we have heard during the debate, the German media company—the Kirch Group—acquired the rights to the 2002 and 2006 World cup matches from FIFA in September 1996. I was interested that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove quoted Mr. Greg Dyke, the Director-General of the BBC, and I could not agree with him more. He said:
"Of course the real villain of the piece is FIFA who sold to Kirch".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby said, he continued:
"If you contrast the action of FIFA with the International Olympic Committee—who have ensured the Olympics have remained universally available—the comparison is stark."
I hope that that message will go out from the House tonight.
As we have heard, the Kirch Group acquired the rights in September 1996. Sadly, negotiations between Kirch and the BBC and ITV for the sale of the rights to the 2002 tournament fell through because Kirch did not consider that those broadcasters' joint offer reflected the true value of the rights. From what we have heard in the debate, it is clear that BSkyB has confirmed that it is not interested in bidding for the rights because it thinks that the terms that Kirch is considering are outrageously high, especially when one considers that the BBC and ITV paid about £4 million each for the rights to the 1998 tournament. Negotiations with the BBC and ITV fell through, and the Government clearly cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of Kirch's decision, but we expect it to comply with the listing legislation. We have protected these special events in law, and we want to see the objective of that law upheld.
550
To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has written to Dr. Dieter Hahn, the managing director of the Kirch Group, and our officials have held a meeting with representatives of the group. It has been made fully aware of the requirement in our legislation that the whole of the World cup tournament is a listed event and that any broadcaster purchasing live rights from Kirch would have to comply with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996.
We understand that Kirch now intends to hold an open auction for the live UK broadcasting rights. The auction rules are expected to be published in the next few weeks. Kirch has said that it intends to comply with the legislation and with the ITC code. Although we cannot foresee the outcome of that auction, we are confident that the ITC will take all proper steps to ensure that the law works in the way that it was intended to so that UK viewers have the opportunity of seeing the whole of the 2002 World cup finals on free-to-air television. That is the result that we want to achieve.
This has been an interesting exchange. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Selby for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. I shall conclude by quoting a further extract from Greg Dyke's speech in Brussels in March this year. He said:
"I hope there is the will here in Brussels to ensure the World Cup is available to all on free to air, universally available television. There is certainly such a will in the British Government."
I reassure the House that there is such a will in the British Government and that there will continue to be so. I hope that that message will be heard loud and clear by the Kirch Group and by FIFA itself.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Conflict Diamonds
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.— [Mr. Clelland.]
2.30 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I welcome this opportunity to set out the international response to the problem of conflict diamonds and the role that the United Kingdom has played in tackling it. This is an important international problem, and this country has worked with others to find new solutions. I want to say at the start that, although the problem of conflict diamonds has arisen primarily in the context of conflicts in Africa, it is not only an African issue. Solutions will require a concerted approach that involves many key players, Governments and industry throughout the world.
Two key aspects have guided our approach to the problems of conflict diamonds. First, rebel movements in countries such as Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone are undoubtedly being funded and fuelled by the proceeds of illegal diamond mining. Diamonds mined in rebel-held areas are often sold for weapons and thereby help to perpetuate violence. More fundamentally, access to diamond areas can often be an end in itself for rebel groups and their backers. Civil war thus becomes a cloak for the ruthless exploitation of a nation's diamond wealth, and that must not be allowed to continue.
Secondly, however, it is sometimes forgotten and it is important to emphasise that the legitimate trade in diamonds is enormously important to the economies of countries such as Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. Diamond revenue is vital to their economic development. Again, that is not only an African issue. In India, which is a major processor of rough diamonds, 800,000 people depend on the industry for their livelihood. We therefore need to protect that industry from the taint of conflict diamonds. They can have no place in the legitimate trade, on which the livelihoods of so many depend.
Some have said that, if nothing is done, a consumer backlash against diamonds could lead to them going the way of fur, and we must work to avoid that. I want to make it clear that I totally oppose any talk of boycotts of diamonds. Such initiatives would be counter-Productive and irresponsible because of the economic implications for countries that depend on the legitimate production of diamonds.
In that context, it is important to keep a sense of perspective. Estimates vary slightly, but conflict diamonds probably account for less than 4 per cent. Of worldwide production. Apart from economic damage, it causes understandable offence to the Governments of legitimate diamond-producing countries when it is suggested in a vague, offhand way that the whole diamond trade, or a high proportion of it, is tainted.
140WH
That suggestion is not true, and I welcome this opportunity to re-emphasise the fact, which is now widely accepted, that conflict diamonds account for 4 per cent. or less of worldwide production. The problem is that the illegally traded minority can turn up wherever diamonds are bought or sold—from London to Tel Aviv and from Antwerp to Bombay. That is why we are working with the international community to try to keep conflict diamonds out of legitimate diamond markets.
We can do that, first by working through the United Nations Security Council to address the problem of conflict diamonds in specific situations. The UK, as a permanent member of the Security Council, was instrumental in pushing through Security Council resolutions to impose sanctions on Sierra Leone and Liberia. The Security Council also acted to halt the trade in conflict diamonds in Angola in 1998 by imposing a ban on the import from Angola of diamonds that were not controlled by the Angolan Government's certification regime. In 1998, the Security Council adopted a resolution banning the import of diamonds from UNITA. That was a groundbreaking step, as it was the first time that the Security Council had targeted the trade in conflict diamonds. Since then, the Security Council has worked hard with the Government of Angola and others to tighten the grip of the ban. In 1999, in another important initiative supported by the UK, the Security Council commissioned a detailed report on UNITA sanctions busting. That has led to further efforts to tighten implementation of the diamond ban.
Sierra Leone is another nation that has been accursed by its own diamond wealth. For years, the Revolutionary United Front rebel movement has financed itself from the illegal plunder of the diamond fields of Sierra Leone. Last July, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1306, drafted by the UK, which bans the import of diamonds from Sierra Leone except those certified as legitimate by the Government of Sierra Leone. We also proposed the first ever UN hearing to assess the role of conflict diamonds in the Sierra Leone conflict and the link between diamonds and arms trafficking. That was held in New York on 31 July 2000. It gave representatives of Governments, industry and civil society an opportunity to brief members of the Security Council's sanctions committee and the media on the dreadful trade and what should be done to end it.
Since the adoption of the ban on uncertificated rough diamonds from Sierra Leone, the RUF has found it harder to make money from diamonds, and official Sierra Leone exports have increased substantially. In 1999, the value of those legitimate diamond exports was $1.5 million. By 2000, that had risen to $million. From October 2000 to January 2001, since the certification scheme came into effect, exports rose to $6.4 million. In addition to this, the exit routes for illegitimate diamonds had become more tortuous.
A dreadful aspect of the tragedy of Sierra Leone, which I remember discussing in this Chamber with a Labour and a Conservative Member who had been to Sierra Leone recently, is that although its people are among the poorest in the world, their diamond wealth goes to the rebels and to neighbouring countries such as Liberia.

141WH
Liberia must bear direct responsibility for the perpetuation of the Sierra Leone conflict. Resolution 1306 also established an expert panel to collect information on violation of Sierra Leone's arms embargo and the link between the diamond and arms trades. The panel's report provided unequivocal evidence that Liberian support has provided rebels with arms and safe havens in return for conflict diamonds, so international pressure has been stepped up on Liberia to close down its links with the rebels. In March 2001, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1343, which calls on Liberia to end its support for the RUF rebels before 7 May 2001. If it does not, there will be a ban on the import of all rough diamonds originating in or exported from Liberia. So far, there has been no evidence of a clear commitment by the Liberian Government to break its link with the rebels, so the ban is expected to be introduced, as foreseen in the resolution.
However, UN Security Council resolutions are not the only weapons needed to tackle the illicit trade. Diamonds are, by their nature, easily smuggled; their origin is easily concealed. It is a sad fact that one of the lessons of the resolutions that I have mentioned is that if one stamps out the trade in one country it tends to crop up elsewhere. That is why we need a global approach. It can only be done by agreement within the global community, including the diamond industry. A good start has been made. Members of the industry, from mining companies all the way through the processing chain to jewellery retailers, have already taken important steps to reassure consumers that their diamonds are conflict free. They have also created their own representative group, the World Diamond Council, to ensure that they co-ordinate their efforts to safeguard the legitimate industry. The World Diamond Council has played an active part in formulating proposals to that end, and has given the industry an important voice in the international campaign to tackle conflict diamonds.
There is also a role for Governments. About a year ago, the South African producer states formed the so-called Kimberley group as a fairly informal brainstorming group involving some key countries, industry and civil society. This was an imaginative approach to tackling a new problem. It brought together key producer countries, key importers such as ourselves, representatives of industry and concerned non-governmental organisations.
The Kimberley process, under South Africa's dynamic leadership, together with that of Botswana and Namibia, has generated tremendous international support and commitment. The United Kingdom has played a prominent part in it. We hosted an important meeting of the group in London in October to try to expand the number of countries participating, and we asked for the issue to be placed on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly. That resulted in a milestone event on 1 December 2000, when the entire membership of the assembly, all 189 countries, adopted a resolution supporting the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. That was a landmark in this affair.
142WH
What would an international certification scheme for rough diamonds mean in practice? We want an international agreement on a scheme under which Governments would permit the export and import only of rough diamonds certified to come from mines under the jurisdiction of a legitimate Government. That is a simple, straightforward and definition. Producer country Governments would have to ensure that all legitimate exports had a proper certificate of authenticity, and importing Governments—the key diamond trading centres, including this country—would have to undertake not to allow imports unless they were accompanied by such a certificate. That would make it much harder for diamonds from rebel-held areas to gain access to respectable international markets.
We want a regime that is relatively simple and not administratively burdensome. We do not want to make life impossible for the legitimate industry, and have therefore resisted calls for a chain of certificates to accompany diamonds all the way from the mine to the jeweller's shop. That would impose a huge burden on countries such as India, where numerous small firms cut and polish diamonds. We believe that a certificate for the import and export of rough diamonds can make a significant contribution to curbing the trade in conflict diamonds. We also believe that some form of monitoring would be desirable, but, again, have no wish to create a huge international bureaucracy.
The UN General Assembly decision gave the Kimberley process the political mandate to press on with the technical negotiations to draw up a global certification scheme. Thirty-eight countries are now members of the group and they include all the key producers and traders. At a meeting in Windhoek in February we agreed on a series of targets to be achieved during the year, so that by September, when another Kimberley process meeting is due in London, an international certification scheme will be close to agreement.
The United Kingdom has worked hard, alongside its partners in the process, to keep up momentum. We realise that the schedule that we set ourselves in Windhoek is a tight one, and that much work remains to be done. While everyone agrees on the desirability of action, there are many details still to be thrashed out. However, we remain optimistic and hope to achieve the next step of securing UN General Assembly blessing for the agreement. We should like a further resolution to be adopted unanimously before the end of the 56th General Assembly.
We could not have succeeded in keeping up the momentum on this issue without the driving force provided by NGOs in the field. We have worked closely with Global Witness, which, with funding from the Government, produced an excellent and highly detailed report outlining recommendations for a global certification scheme.
Mr. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central): My hon. Friend will be aware of a recent report by Global Witness about diamonds from Sierra Leone. On the matter of certification, it reported that at present only the Belgians have adequate computer links for monitoring the processes of certification from Sierra Leone. Will my hon. Friend say whether we intend to

143WH
acquire similar capacity? Will we in Britain be able to establish computer links that increase the likelihood that conflict diamonds will not get through?
Mr. Wilson: I did not realise that my hon. Friend had joined us. I acknowledge his role in setting up the present process. I assure him that the matter that he raises, and the concerns expressed by Global Witness, are taken seriously. As I was about to mention, this subject was among those discussed at meetings in Brussels this week, and I hope that we shall soon be able to provide the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks.
In conclusion, we have come a long way in the few years since the process in question began. We have worked closely with the industry and others to tackle a difficult and important subject, which has many connotations and which gives rise to many side effects, often involving immense human suffering. We acknowledge the progress that has been made, but we also recognise that many problems remain to be resolved, and that intergovernmental and inter-agency consultations must be painstaking, and can be difficult to conduct speedily.
However, the Kimberley process is making headway. As I speak, UK representatives are involved in the latest meeting of the Kimberley process in Brussels, and progress is being made. Our aim at that meeting is to negotiate the specific content of an international certification scheme, looking towards agreement on minimum standards for such a scheme, and that must take account of the kind of concerns that my hon. Friend has mentioned. A successful meeting in Brussels this week will take us one step closer to breaking the link between conflict and the illicit trade in diamonds.
I am grateful for this opportunity to set out the progress that has been made and to be open and frank about the difficulties that remain in tackling an issue that I do not think will divide us in any way. If a clear separation could be made between the 96 per cent. plus of diamonds that are legitimate and the 4 per cent. or less that are illegitimate, that would be good for the legitimate diamond trade, for countries that produce diamonds and depend on them economically, and for the well-being of the people of those countries. That 4 per cent. or less can be and are being used to fund a great deal of suffering in the world.
2.46 pm
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): I thank the Minister for setting out the matter under discussion so openly and comprehensively. Conflict diamonds are an important issue, which certainly transcends any political differences. Hon. Members will be aware that the illegal trade in rough diamonds, however small in the overall context, too often forms an intrinsic part of rebellion and violence, particularly in Africa. The trade has been responsible for destroying the lives of innocent men, women and children.
Like all Conservatives, I welcome wholeheartedly any move that will help those people to resurrect their lives and reunite the families that have been divided by conflict. We must break the link between diamonds and war. It is unacceptable that brutal wars are being funded from the profits of this illegal trade, and it is unacceptable that higher up the chain, rogue traders and
144WH
middlemen are cashing in on it. I should like to join other hon. Members in offering support to all those who have already contributed so much time and energy to a process that we all hope will lead to the regulation of the illegal diamond trade and bring an end to its unhappy consequences.
It was entirely correct and proper for Britain to cosponsor the resolution on conflict diamonds adopted at the UN General Assembly on 1 December 2000. That resolution should go a long way towards helping to rid the world of the illegal diamond trade. It is important that the recommendations made by the assembly form an integral part of any international strategy. Any such strategy must comply with internationally agreed minimum standards, secure the widest possible participation, include mechanisms to ensure compliance with respect to the sovereignty of states, and be transparent.
The diamond industry united in the creation of the World Diamond Council. That shows us that the industry is concerned about the issue of conflict diamonds, and that it is determined to pull together to tackle it head on. It is particularly pleasing that the industry is putting its own house in order in that respect and that it is committed to identifying and ostracising those who operate on the margins of the legitimate trade and seek to profit from the misery and suffering caused by the trade in conflict diamonds.
De Beers has been highlighted for special praise, not least by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Earlier this year he said:
"De Beers has set an example, with its response to criticism of the diamond trade in Africa and its efforts to ensure that traders and consumers of diamonds will no longer unwittingly help to finance warlords."
The Conservatives welcome wholeheartedly the decision by De Beers to offer its assistance to the United Nations in developing rough diamond supplies for identification purposes in importing and exporting centers. The universal acceptance of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds represents a significant step.
We are pleased that the 36 countries that met in London in October realised a common interest in protecting the legitimate trade and that all joined the Kimberley consensus. We are even more pleased that the entire membership of the United Nations General Assembly—all 189 countries—saw fit to accept the need for an international certification scheme and approved a resolution calling for one to be developed in due course. We wish the Kimberley task force well. We all hope that it will be successful in the continuing process of identifying an accountable certification scheme and making it work. We are at the beginning of a long path. However, I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that it is certainly a worthy path.
I come now to the problems caused by conflict diamonds in particular countries. In respect of Angola, hon. Members will be aware that, on 25 January 2001, the United Nations Security Council extended for a further three months the mandate of the monitoring mechanism established to investigate violations of sanctions imposed against the rebel movement UNITA. The recently published final report of the monitoring mechanism assessed the effectiveness of the Security

145WH
Council resolution on the issue. It is a revealing report, which suggests that while much has been done, there is still much progress to be made.
The report said that, even where Governments have both enacted laws and strengthened diamond-trading controls, illicit diamonds are still reaching the market. Gems will find a market as long as illicit diamonds can be traded and until those who are involved in the trade are exposed and penalised, thus making UNITA diamonds a less attractive proposition.
UN sanctions have driven UNITA diamond trading deeper underground and have led to new routes for diamond trading. They have provided the impetus for worldwide controls on diamonds—the certificate of origin scheme. However, the scheme is unlikely to be implemented before the end of this year. We must build on the efforts of those who have already contributed so much, and ensure that an international certification scheme for diamonds becomes a reality. The British Government have a duty to humanity to be an integral part of that process.
The examples of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa show how diamonds have the potential to play a prominent role in development. That role must not be underestimated; nor, therefore, must confidence in diamonds be undermined. I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising that this is not only an issue for Africa.
In Botswana, diamonds account for one third of GDP, more than half of Government revenues and about 80 per cent. of export earnings. They are the reason for the country's tremendous growth. Twenty-five years ago, it was one of the 20 poorest countries in the world. Today, it is considered to be the richest non-oil-producing country in Africa. As its President, Festus Mogae, has said:
"Diamonds mean development in Botswana, the revenues from which have been used to build schools and hospitals, roads and bridges, offices and houses."
So let us never forget the important role that diamonds have played in the considerable success story that is Botswana.
However, to the dismay of people like President Mogae, even in Botswana, the legitimate trade is in danger of suffering great damage because of illegal diamond trafficking, which, although it should be noted accounts for less than 3 or 4 per cent. of the world's total production of diamonds, has the potential to taint the entire industry. Image, especially for diamonds, is crucial.
The most publicised effect of conflict diamonds has been in Sierra Leone. We welcome the United Nations Security Council's unanimous vote to block diamond exports from Liberia in punishment for its guns-for-gems trade in support of the rebel RUF in Sierra Leone. We are, however, disappointed that the ban on diamonds, along with the travel embargo on President Charles Taylor and several Liberian officials and business men, will not come into force until 7 May. It was right to leave President Taylor and his associates in no doubt that the international community will no longer tolerate his destabilising activities in the region.
146WH
A recent Global Witness report states that Sierra Leone may be exporting conflict diamonds through official channels, despite a United Nations embargo. That is deeply worrying and serves to confirm the conclusions of the UN Security Council monitoring mechanism for Angola.
In the light of that report, the role of the international peacekeeping forces in Sierra Leone appears to be yet more significant in the fight against the illegal diamond trade. Focus has also been cast on the May 1999 Lomé agreement. Under that agreement, the RUF was recognised as a legal political party and was given seats in the Sierra Leone Government. The rebels were also given a guarantee that they would not be prosecuted for the atrocities that they had committed against the civilian population. The RUF leader, Foday Sankoh, was given a key Government post as chairman of the strategic minerals commission, which oversees the exploitation of the country's diamond wealth.
This debate provides a good opportunity to consider objectively how the illegal diamond trade affects countries specifically and generally. It is clear that the ordinary people of Africa, the true victims of the illegal diamond trade, will be best served if our Government, rather than accusing the UN of failure, continue to operate in unison with, and in support of, the UN's mission to end the illegal diamond trade. I urge the Minister to work to secure, under a UN mandate, an international certification scheme to cover all rough diamonds. Moreover, I urge him to ensure that the scheme is workable, with minimum standards and compliance, and that it will protect legitimate trade but curtail illicit trafficking in diamonds. That would represent an important step in stamping out illegal diamond trading, with all its unfortunate consequences.
In conclusion, we must put this reprehensible activity into context. Illegal diamond trading amounts to a tiny fraction of the overall legitimate trade in diamonds. Diamonds are beautiful and enduring objects, which have given pleasure to their owners for many hundreds of years, and will continue to do so. Africa has benefited enormously from the trade in diamonds. The diamond mining and selling business should be seen in a holistic context. The difficulties that we have been talking about this afternoon should not stigmatise Africa or encourage any view that the diamond business is somehow tainted. There is no justification whatever for such a view. If the diamond business were perceived to be anything other than a wholly legitimate activity, it would have negative consequences for several African countries, and would neither serve their interests nor those of people in other countries who work in the business, particularly in India. Diamonds have played a crucial part in the development of Africa and must be allowed to continue to do so, supported by consumers all over the world who enjoy, trust and value the product itself.
2.57 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central): I begin by picking up the theme of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that undoubtedly, diamonds are a power for good—the example of Botswana is well made. The benign scenario would be for the whole diamond trade to become something practical and useful, especially for producing countries. It is also a fact that diamonds have altered the course of African history and

147WH
history more generally. At least three conflicts raging in Africa—in Angola, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo—would have been different had diamonds not formed part of the motive for conflict.
There is no doubt that one of the motives for the involvement of many external powers in the conflict in the DRC has been the ability to exploit illegally that country's mineral wealth. In that country, rather than diamonds being employed productively, as in Botswana, diamonds have been stolen and used illegitimately as a mechanism of the conflict. The diamond trade in all three countries can be measured in broken bones and lives lost.
There is no doubt that the biggest mechanism for keeping Mr. Savimbi at the head of UNITA in Angola has been his own ability to control those parts of Angola from which the diamonds come. It might be little recognised in this country that that has been one of the most outrageous conflicts raging on this planet for a long time. Its origins are back in the days of the cold war. That was a long time ago, but, sadly, Mr Savimbi regarded it as a commercial exploitation and an aggrandisement of his own position rather than being about the betterment of the people of Angola.
It is legitimate to question how we handle the diamond trade, and to couple that by saying that we recognise that diamonds are a beneficial commodity that can produce consumer satisfaction in Britain. However, at every part of the chain, those involved must examine their ability to have an impact on those diamonds that have caused such conflicts. I remember when the United Nations first involved itself in the embargo in respect of Angola. At the time, many voices said that it was impossible to control the trade. Those voices came from important Governments that were involved in the diamond trade. They resisted the idea that we should control conflict diamonds because they feared that such action would impact on their own national economies within Europe.
There was resistance within the industry from those who said that it was not possible to control such a trade. Yet, little by little, both the intellectual and the practical arguments, if not being won, are at least moving the margins. It is now possible to say that the control of conflict diamonds is a reality. It is worth examining the report by Global Witness. It recently visited Sierra Leone, a country where the civil administration is extremely weak. I say that as someone with great emotional sympathy for the Government and the people of Sierra Leone.
The institutions are weak, so if Sierra Leone were able, as Global Witness has said, to achieve significant results by the process of certification, it is clear that there is enormous potential benefit for that country and the world. It is not without problems, however, and Global Witness referred to some of the problems that arose in the Sierra Leonean context. It pointed out the capacity for the diamond industry to induce corruption at the most extraordinary levels. Diamonds, by their nature being small and easily transportable, but of enormous value, are an extremely tempting part of the process that leads to the corruption of individual officials.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: If the Sierra Leone Government can certify some of the diamonds,
148WH
presumably that is a small proportion of the diamonds produced in Sierra Leone. The main diamond fields are still being controlled by the RUF, so presumably diamonds can leave the country without being certified.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The problem for Sierra Leone is that, while it can control the diamonds from Government-held areas, as Global Witness said, the process of certification recognises the fact that some diamonds from rebel-held areas come through the legitimate system. It is conceded openly that there are not so many. In general, the system is working, but there is a need to ensure that it works more efficiently. When diamonds are not under the control of the authorities in Sierra Leone, but disappear across the border to Liberia, we must look for the mechanics to which the Minister referred.
There is no doubt that President Taylor of Liberia has been the single most influential person in guaranteeing that the conflict in Sierra. Leone continues. Mr. Taylor deserves not only criticism, but the tough action that is long overdue. I know from personal experience that the ability of that regime to claim innocence in such matters is extraordinary, even in the face of the most blatant evidence of abuse. Those diamonds pour across the Sierra Leonean border into Liberia, neighbouring African countries and Europe, and the mechanics are that when diamonds come one way, arms from European countries and others are transferred back to Africa and keep the conflict fuelled. We must do what we can to seal those diamonds, to prevent them from disappearing from Sierra Leone. Let us say it plainly: the people of Sierra Leone are being robbed by the rebels, by President Taylor and by that part of the world community that is prepared to deal in illegal diamonds and the arms trade that fuels the conflict.
However, even in Sierra Leone, where the diamonds are under the control of the Sierra Leonean authorities, the certification process has been successful. We should applaud that, because if it can be done there, there is no argument that we cannot reproduce such certification elsewhere. That is the hopeful message. There are extraordinary difficulties with the diamond trade—diamonds are by nature easily transported and smuggled. No one is under any illusions that even with the most efficient certification process we can guarantee that no diamonds will hit the cutting shops in India or western Europe and that none of them will appear on our high streets. However, we can do a lot to reduce the 4 per cent. Of diamonds that have historically come from areas of conflict, and remove the profit element.
I should like to raise a practical issue with the Minister. Global Witness recognised in its report that a limited number of illegitimate diamonds are coming through the legitimate system. One reason given was that if diamond dealers are penalised for including an occasional stone of a questionable but not profitable nature, they will simply continue to smuggle and will not use the new system—or so dealers and their apologists would claim. Global Witness made the point that, in the end, the only way to tackle the problem is by confiscation of illegal diamonds. There must be a tough and robust approach to that; we must examine confiscation as a means of discouragement. Smuggling will take place; I acknowledge that with no joy but enormous regret. However, the way to combat it is not

149WH
to allow the official system to be corrupted at the margin by conflict diamonds. I plead with my hon. Friend to examine that matter.
I welcome the Minister's comments about the steps that the British Government have taken. We have helped to move the issue forward. I also welcome what he said about the possibility of introducing new technology computer links to ensure that the certification process is better managed globally. In the end, countries such as Britain must acknowledge that we are the consumers of diamonds. It is entirely legitimate and acceptable that we consume diamonds from Botswana and South Africa—as the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said, no stigma should be attached to that trade. However, equally, we have as much responsibility as anyone else to ensure that we bear down on conflict diamonds. If we ignore that we ignore our moral responsibility and practical capacity to bear down on conflict diamonds in countries such as Congo, Sierra Leone and Angola.
I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by congratulating the Minister on his remarks, and I encourage him to continue the process, which is not simply worthy but can achieve practical results. I congratulate him on his efforts.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (in the Chair): Before I call Dr. Tonge, I should say that I am not Mr. Deputy Speaker.
3.9 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: That is modest of you, Mr. Pike. Some of your colleagues are not so modest. We have had a lot of fun in the past few weeks discussing what people should be called and, despite the ruling, some people are getting away with "Mr. Deputy Speaker", which is rather fun.
I am pleased to speak in the debate, because the subject is close to my heart. After four years of considering international development issues, I have realised how important an issue it is. As the Minister said, the great tragedy of Sierra Leone is that some of the poorest people in the world have such great wealth in their country. It goes to the rebels, to Liberia and other countries, and it fuels war, as we have heard, in Angola, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example.
I am delighted that the Cabinet sub-committee on conflict prevention in Africa, an all-departmental subcommittee, is now producing material on conflict prevention. Its interesting report contains a table that lists 35 countries that have experienced civil war since 1948. That is an extraordinary number. Of those wars, six or seven continue.
Diamonds are a big factor in many of the wars that are still running in Africa. I emphasise what a destabilising factor diamonds are and how much suffering they cause. They enable arms to be purchased to pursue such wars. To our great shame, we do not know how many UK citizens are involved in selling arms to such countries, and benefit from the proceeds of illegal trafficking in diamonds, but fortunately we may
150WH
know soon. If the draft arms control Bill is introduced after the general election, as I am sure that it will be, we may subsequently have some control over such people.
In case I do not have the opportunity to say so after the general election, I should say that two aspects of the draft arms control Bill worry me. No mention is made of prior scrutiny, which I thought would be one of the key elements in the Bill, as the Quadripartite Committee so strongly favoured it.
UK passport holders living anywhere in the world who deal in arms should come under the aegis of the Bill, not merely UK passport holders living in Britain. Most of the arms brokers about whom I hear have mobile phones and do not have enormous offices and establishments. They need merely to take their mobile phones abroad to deal in arms paid for out of the proceeds of the diamond industry. I am sorry to digress, Mr. Pike, but I felt that I must put in my oar.
I read a most astonishing document from the United Nations global policy forum, which I hope and expect is being considered by civil servants in the Foreign Office. It was produced on 21 December 2000, and it is the final report of the monitoring mechanism on Angola sanctions. It made staggering reading. I did not read it all, but dipped into it. It contains details of smuggling routes. People know exactly where the diamonds are going and how they are being smuggled. It contains the names of arms brokers, diamond dealers and cutters, and details of where diamonds are cut.
It is common knowledge that, as the report points out, Rwanda and Uganda are big exporters of diamonds. However, they have no diamonds within their country boundaries. A diamond cutting center in Kigali is planned. I do not know whether it will cut conflict diamonds.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The crude reality is that no one in Rwanda or Uganda can deny that those diamonds are stolen from the Congo.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I thought as much, because Rwanda and Uganda are always looking for the means by which to buy arms to pursue wars. It could be argued that Rwanda and Uganda have a legitimate interest in defending their territory following the genocide in Rwanda. Nevertheless, conflict diamonds are fuelling wars. I hope that the next time members of the Select Committee visit the Great Lakes region—the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and I were in Rwanda a few years ago—they will investigate the problem in detail.
The other fascinating person in the report is Victor Bout. I am sure that hon. Members know his name. He is all over the place. He is a tremendous chap who has loads of passports and identities. He operates all over the show and is a very successful man when it comes to conflict diamonds. A brief biography of the man tells us that he is married, and that his wife, Alla, resides in the United Arab Emirates. I bet she has some pretty hefty diamonds. I feel like trying to discover the address of the couple. I would love to write to Mrs. Bout and ask her—as a woman, looking at the diamonds that she no doubt wears—how many hundreds of thousands of women and children have been tortured, slaughtered and killed so that she can wear her beautiful diamonds on her finger.

151WH
It is comforting to hear that only 4 per cent. Of the diamonds circulating in the world are conflict diamonds, but I have not worn my two very modest diamonds recently. I was given them a long time ago, and I hope that they are not conflict diamonds. Women need to know whether their diamonds are conflict diamonds. It would be nice to find out whether Mrs. Bout knows the suffering that her diamonds probably caused.
I congratulate the authors of the report. It is astonishingly explicit, and I assume that it will form the basis of an awful lot of the certification and monitoring of the subject in the future. I also congratulate the Government on the work that they have done. Dramatic progress has been made, and we thank those responsible for it. I wondered why we were having this debate this afternoon, but it is presumably so that we can record that a lot of progress has been made.
The Kimberley process has resulted in the establishment of the World Diamond Council, which has made huge progress. The need for global certification has been accepted by 189 countries. The only doubts that I have relate to the way in which the council will operate. No doubt we shall find out over the next few years. How will the certification be implemented? Who will check? I feel that faster progress would be made if the United Nations were more effective. It has produced a wonderful report, but how effective will it be at monitoring? For example, in Sierra Leone, as we know, the RUF still controls the diamond fields and until that control is wrested from the rebels—the UN must have a part to play in that—there is little hope of ending the trade in the near future. It would be useful to know whether the Minister shares the view of the Secretary of State for International Development on the role of the UN in Sierra Leone.
A sanctions regime operates against Liberia and Sierra Leone and, according to the Fowler report, there is a lot of sanction busting. Charles Taylor cocks a snook at everyone and carries on regardless, undaunted by sanctions. Where is the monitoring of that? Where are the penalties for breaking sanctions? If we know that sanctions are being broken and who is breaking them, why are there no penalties, and why is the international community so hopeless at penalising people who break the regimes? That is what I find so frustrating.
Conflict in Africa, and all over the world, is not due just to diamonds. I note that the new Cabinet subcommittee on conflict prevention has said that a reduction in the exploitation of mineral wealth is one of the most pressing needs in cutting down the amount of conflict in the world. This morning, I spoke to somebody from Colombia, a country about which the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) knows a great deal. Wars in Colombia are fuelled by the coca trade, and by gold and oil. In Sudan—which I have visited and about which I feel passionately—the extraction of the mineral wealth of oil is causing untold abuse of human rights and damage to the country. It is also making the civil war in Sudan, which has been raging for 20 years, even worse, because people are being driven from their homelands, taken into slavery and murdered. All that occurs in the name of extracting mineral wealth.
British companies are involved in extracting mineral wealth from southern Sudan, just as British people are involved in conflict diamonds and extracting
152WH
Colombian mineral wealth. I call on the Government to take stronger action against the companies that are prepared to see such suffering for the sake of mineral wealth. Such wealth never benefits the poor people of the country from which it is extracted, but always goes into the hands of the rich of the country, or abroad. More than anything, I hope that we can strive to ensure that British hands are clean.
3.22 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok): I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the action that they have taken on the matter. I missed the first couple of minutes of the Minister's speech, but I am sure that it was in line with everything else that he said, which seemed to be first class and worthy of our support. I also congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) for his contribution, and for the contribution that he made to the matter as a Minister.
I want to consider how conflict diamonds may affect legitimate trade. I recently had the opportunity to lead the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Botswana, and I saw the tremendous impact that diamond mining and diamond money has had on the country's development. Like the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), I also received a briefing from the Botswanan high commissioner, so I shall not quote the same words as he did. However, we should not do anything to damage the tremendous impact and difference being made to that country by diamonds and diamond mining. Botswana and other responsible diamond-mining countries welcome the action being taken. However, they are understandably worried that it may spill over and lead to steps that undermine the trade in general, and the source of revenue on which they depend for their development.
I shall touch on, but not go into great detail about, issues relating to Botswana. I have visited its diamond mines and appreciated the way in which the diamonds are produced—they occur in kimberlite pipes. I have seen the mining processes and, from the explanations that we received, I recognise that those diamonds may be physically protected from theft as alluvial diamonds, which are spread over wide geographical areas, cannot. Much to the disappointment of my wife, the diamond production process in Botswana is secure and safe. Even if one looks at the soles of one's shoes after walking through the area, one sees that nothing sticks to them that might be of future use. However, that is not always the case.
I appreciate that it is almost impossible, in Botswana, for illicit diamonds to be smuggled into the trail from the mine to the point of export, but that is not necessarily the case elsewhere. It was difficult to disagree with anything that the Minister said earlier, but not impossible. I want to pick up the point about the security of the trail from mine to shop. I recognise the Minister's point about not wanting to place undue burdens on business, and not wishing to create too much of a bureaucratic nightmare. However, issues of credibility remain. Although the Botswanan process, from mine to the point of export, is secure, that is not the case everywhere else. While there are large numbers of small polishers in India, the opportunity for illicit diamonds to be leaked in to the process and

153WH
contaminate the flow is considerable. I am worried that, in those circumstances, the proposed monitoring process will be insufficiently stringent. The danger is that if the system is deemed to be unsafe or insecure, it will be discredited. If there is failure to convince people that the system is secure, there is a danger of a consumer boycott of diamonds in general—an indiscriminate boycott, which would have tremendous adverse consequences on countries such as Botswana.
While I was in Botswana, I was struck by the impact of HIV-AIDS there. When the group visited a particular mine, we were told that new machinery was to be introduced which would require a work force that was one third smaller. In our naivety, we asked whether there would have to be redundancies. We were told that that would not be necessary, so we asked whether a lot of people would be retiring. It was explained that that was not the case. Eventually, the penny dropped—a third of the work force would die of AIDS over the period during which the new technology was being introduced. Effectively, the work force that was needed would be achieved by a process of attrition through AIDS. The workers in the Botswana diamond mines were, as I understood it, the highest paid and the best educated in the country, and 20 to 25 per cent. Of them had tested positive for HIV. Such an impact on a country such as Botswana means that the need for the money flowing from legitimate diamond sales is absolutely essential. Will the Minister provide further assurances about the way in which the trail from mine to shop can be tightened up, secured and made credible, in order to avoid the prospect of an overall consumer boycott, which could significantly damage legitimate producers, such as Botswana, which depend on mining for their future?
3.28 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): The debate highlights a considerable and welcome shift in the world perception of what is acceptable behaviour. Our democracy is old enough for us to have been enriched by piracy against Spanish ships that were engaged in carrying gold that they had stolen from south America. We are old enough to have been enriched by the slave trade for a couple of centuries, and we have benefited hugely over the years, whether through the inclusion of the Kohinoor diamond in the Queen's jewels or taking mineral deposits from countries that were not strong enough to stop us. We must therefore approach the subject with humility.
Importantly, the world is at last beginning to understand the clear gain to the global community of having higher and enforceable standards. That is a huge improvement. Yesterday, I sat through a large part of the Quadripartite Committee's proceedings on arms control, and I was encouraged to discover that the arms industry is generally in favour of proper controls on arms dealing. Its sole and understandable anxiety is that it might be left so far ahead of the pack that less scrupulous countries could benefit at its expense. That is the reason why international agreements, such as the Kimberley agreement, are indispensible for serious progress.
154WH
With regard to the matter under discussion, we should carefully examine our foreign and development policies. I am disheartened by events in Uganda. It has made a serious attempt to deal with HIV and AIDS, and to improve the living conditions of its people, but it also takes too readily to armed conflict to achieve its ends. Some of Uganda's armed conflicts are as historically difficult to unravel as the Northern Ireland situation, but others are almost gratuitous. Uganda is illegally plundering the Democratic Republic of Congo's mineral wealth, and yet it remains the darling of the development community. For instance, it was one of the first countries to receive heavily indebted poor countries relief. We must support countries in sub-Saharan Africa that have Governments that are strong and committed enough to make a positive difference, but we should also use our position to put pressure on nations such as Uganda to behave better.
The policy of certifying the origins of diamonds should be developed as far as possible, because it is clear that legitimate producers, such as Botswana, have everything to gain and nothing to lose from such a transparent international system. I was encouraged by the Minister's comments about the roles of Great Britain and the international community with regard to the issue, and I hope that a system of transparent certification and of monitoring the routes by which diamonds get into the shops, and on to the bosoms of arms dealers' wives, can be properly put in place. I trust that, as the international community develops and globalisation advances, we will be better able to differentiate between regimes whose behaviour is unacceptable to the international community, and those that are making a serious effort to match up to international standards.
The narrow issue that we are debating has wider implications, but I do not wish the discussion to be broadened to such an extent that effective action is not taken.
3.34 pm
Mr. Wilson: With the leave of the Chamber, Mr. Pike, I shall reply to the debate. The opening remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) were important. It is a great advance that we are discussing the source of a commodity and the conditions under which it is produced, and the implications of those matters. Such scrutiny should be applied to many other commodities. We are entitled to ask those who benefit from the production of such commodities to offer some assurances about their source and its ethical quality.
To digress slightly, I have been involved a little in the past week or 10 days with the question of how cocoa is produced. I did not know that child slaves were used to anything like the extent that they appear to be in the production of cocoa and other basic commodities in parts of Africa. However, now that I do, I have no doubt that it should be possible to walk into a supermarket in this country to buy chocolate or cocoa and to have an assurance from the people who have made it and profited from it for generations that each of the ingredients was produced under circumstances that consumers find acceptable. That is not too high a standard to set, and there is nothing technically impossible about giving such an assurance. If there are

155WH
difficulties, it is up to the people who profit from the supply chain to address them and thereby put themselves in a position to give an assurance.
The implications of what we are talking about go beyond diamonds, although there is a special consideration in the case of diamonds because there is a straight correlation in practice between illegal production and the illegal acquisition of weapons of death. That makes the imperatives behind the action in which we are participating so urgent and the moral arguments so unanswerable. The diamond industry has therefore been put in the forefront when it comes to facing demands for a response to ethical questions and for the assurances that we all want. The industry has been obliged to lead the way today, but many other producers of basic commodities, in line with the philosophical change that has been identified, will be asked to act tomorrow. It will be a great step forward for humanity when they are.
Dr. Tonge: What assurances will the Minister seek from the chocolate manufacturers? I understand that the Government have had some contact with them. What assurances will we get that their products do not involve child slave labour? Will those assurances be on the product?
Mr. Wilson: I seek your further indulgence, Mr. Pike, to answer that point briefly. We are in discussion with the chocolate manufacturers and cocoa producers, and there will be further meetings in the near future. In fact, I signed a written reply to the hon. Lady to that effect today.
Nobody wants to generalise or sensationalise or to suggest that every bar of chocolate or cup of cocoa has the blood of slave children in it. It is tempting to leap from the particular to the general in that way, but we do not want to over-dramatise. I want to be able to give the assurances that the hon. Lady suggested. It should be possible to secure the involvement of the producers in the industry in the same way as it has been possible to engage the producers in the diamond industry.
As I said in my opening remarks, the story so far is a positive one of Governments, industry and civil society working together to achieve the same ends. However, I still do not underestimate the difficulties of reaching agreement on a global certification scheme for rough diamonds. The concept might be reasonably simple, but delegates who attended the Kimberley process meetings have a lot of technical details to agree between now and the autumn. Those include the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan about how national and international customs procedures for the import and export of diamonds can be adapted in such a way as to give the assurance of legitimacy that we seek. It is obviously necessary to find mechanisms that do not give rise to the fantastic paper trail that could come into existence if every stage of the chain required certification, but which do not reduce the system to something that is meaningless because it is too vague. That is something that Governments alone cannot enforce—we must have the co-operation of the industry, which is why the Kimberley dialogue is taking place in Brussels this week.
Mr. Davidson: I would like to point out that the Minister's hon. Friend from Govan is actually his hon. Friend from Pollok.
156WH
However, I seek an assurance that any system that is developed will be open to modification and that the Government intend to press the industry to agree in principle that where any difficulties or discrepancies arise there will be some way of amending the procedure. We would not want to establish a system that could not be amended even if it was discovered to be fallible.
Mr. Wilson: That is self-evidently true, and I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) says. I must remember in future that when we are talking shipbuilding he is from Govan, but when we are talking diamonds he is from Pollok. That is now established beyond doubt.
The issues under discussion as part of the Kimberley process include whether we can agree on simple but effective monitoring mechanisms that do not breach commercial confidentiality. Many producer countries are naturally sensitive about data relating to their diamond trade and possible stockpiles. They also want to preserve their own systems of certification and authenticating diamonds without undue interference from outside.
As part of the Kimberley process, we also need to consider whether any scheme will be voluntary or mandatory, whether it will apply globally or regionally, and whether it will be compatible with other international legal agreements governing trade, such as those imposed by the World Trade Organisation. These issues and others have to be discussed, but I am confident that with sufficient political will they can be satisfactorily resolved. I hope that no nation will want to frustrate agreement on an issue so important to the welfare of so many people throughout the world.
I will now try to deal with some of the points raised this afternoon. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) wondered aloud how many British citizens were involved in selling arms to rebel groups such as UNITA and the RUF in Sierra Leone, which is very much part and parcel of today's debate. By definition, I cannot answer that question. However, I can say that anyone who is involved in that activity is acting illegally. Both of those organisations are the subject of United Nations embargoes. Anyone who is involved in that trade is liable to arrest and prosecution. Any available information about any British citizen who is involved in that trade, whether in Britain or abroad, should be brought to the attention of the authorities. I can assure the hon. Lady that such information will be diligently followed up.
I would also like to endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok about the negative effects of any boycott initiative in allowing the legitimate trade to become tainted by the illegitimate trade. There are probably lots of people in the western world who do not like the concept of diamonds in general because they do not have any, and if they can dress up that dislike in an ethical argument, so much the better for them. We should not subscribe to a boycott in any way, for exactly the reason given by my hon. Friend.
Diamonds are an extremely valuable and important commodity for many countries the economic activities of which we generally endorse and support. For the UK to be in any way party to a boycott or a discrediting of those countries' basic raw material, which contributes to

157WH
their wealth, would be irresponsible. That point must be clearly made, because the argument in favour of a boycott arises from time to time. Although it is glib and partial, it is a solution in the eyes of some, but it is not one that we support, because it would have consequences for the people who produce the 96 per cent. and more of diamonds that are legally mined and refined. My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok is right; Botswana and the other diamond-producing countries are entitled to receive that message clearly from this debate. I would even suggest that the hon. Member for Richmond Park uncover the stock of diamonds in her bijou residence in Richmond and wear them with pride, safe in the knowledge that it is 96 per cent. certain that they were legitimately produced. [Interruption.] She is now trying to tell the Chamber that they are very small diamonds. We shall wait and see.
In cash terms, there are few objects on earth more valuable than a diamond. However, the nub of the problem is that the value of each diamond that is smuggled out of a conflict zone is great enough for thousands of bullets to be smuggled in. Nothing can be easier than carrying a diamond over a border, but cutting out the scourge of conflict diamonds from the world diamond trade is a much greater challenge. To
158WH
achieve that, it is essential that all Governments with a direct stake in the diamond business buy into any agreed international solution. It is vital that the industry—the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) rightly mentioned de Beers—as well as civil society, representatives of trades unions and NGOs, have all been involved at every stage of the Kimberley process.
We have on our side the good will of all the major stakeholders. While that makes it easier to devise a solution, we still need imagination and determination on the part of everybody. Many details remain to be resolved and there are many interests at stake. The next stages of the process may well be painstaking. However, I can say with certainty that we shall gain nothing by going ahead without having the industry on board. Equally, there is no point if we do not involve civil society. We are aware that any final scheme must strike a delicate balance between practicality and bureaucracy. We shall work hard to find that balance, while trying to maintain the momentum built up over the past year. I hope that in future months, as the Kimberley process develops, I will be able to report on the progress that we have made in ensuring that the legitimate diamond industry is untainted by conflict.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Four o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Defence Procurement Agency
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Procurement Agency for the financial year 2001–02. [159240]

  Mr. Hoon
  Five key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency for the financial year 2001–02.

  The first key targets apply to projects covered by the Major Projects Report which have passed their main gate approval. Key targets 2 and 3 are consistent with targets set in the Department's 1999–2002 Public Service Agreement (PSA), adapted to cover cumulative performance. The fourth key target relates to improvement in DPA customer satisfaction and the fifth to a reduction in the cost of running the agency. Key target 5 exceeds the target featured in the PSA. The key targets are:
  Key target 1: Key requirements compliance
  Predicted achievement of customers' key requirements for projects1: 97 per cent.
  Key target 2: Average cumulative In-Service Date slippage
  Average cumulative slippage of In-Service Dates2 at 31 March 2002 not to exceed 11.4 months.
  Key target 3: Average cumulative cost growth
  Average cumulative cost variation3 at 31 March 2002 not to exceed 2.5 per cent.
  Key target 4: Customer Survey Satisfaction rating
  Customer Satisfaction Rating 70 per cent.
  Key target 5: Agency Running Costs
  While continuing to meet the demands of the procurement programme, reduce the operating costs of the DPA in relation to the 1997–98 costs of the Procurement Executive by 22 per cent.
  1 Key requirements for projects in the MPR have been established that define the essential characteristics of the equipment.
  2 Variation between in service date (ISD) approved at Main Gate (the major investment decision point) and currently predicted ISD.
  3 Variation between cost approved at Main Gate and current estimate.

  Ministry of Defence Police Agency
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the quinquennial review of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency will take place; and what(a) the aim of, and (b) the arrangements for, the review will be. [159534]

  Dr. Moonie
  The quinquennial review (QQR) of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) will begin in April 2001. The review will examine the role, operations and organisation of the MDP with a view to establishing the requirement for its services in the future, and how these can best be delivered.
  308W
  Work to prepare for the QQR has already begun. This has principally involved canvassing the views of the MDP's customers about its effectiveness, and gathering other information with which to assess the MDP's performance since it became an agency in April 1996. Stage one of the QQR will address three fundamental questions: to what extent is there a continuing requirement for the services currently provided by the MDP; how far could organisations other than the MDP contribute to meeting those future requirements; and, if a continuing requirement for MDP services is confirmed, what organisational configuration should it have. If continued agency status is confirmed, the second stage of the QQR will develop more detailed proposals for continuing improvements in performance and quality of service delivery.

  The MDP is by no means the only organisation involved in providing policing and security services to the MOD. The review will therefore examine its interface with other practitioners (including Service police forces) to ensure that the MDP operates in a 'joined up' way with them, focusing in particular on the scope for partnership-working and the spread of best practice. It will also examine the way the relationship between the MDP and other UK police forces is evolving.

  I expect to see advice arising from stage one of the review in the summer, and from stage two, if pursued, in the autumn.

  The review team will consult widely with all stakeholders, including customer organisations, the MDP management team, Agency staff, the Defence Police Federation, Civil Service trades unions, other police forces, and the relevant policy staffs in MOD, the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. The MOD is also keen to hear the views of other organisations or individuals with an interest. These can be sent to the MDP QQR Team, Room 4113, MOD Main Building, London, SW1A 2HB.

  Tornado GR4
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when Tornado GR4s will be given Military Aircraft Release; when the first GR4s will be deployed on operations; and if he will make a statement; [157588]

  (2) what effect there will be on the United Kingdom's commitments to the Joint Rapid Reaction Force of delay in achieving Military Aircraft Release for the Tornado GR4; and if he will make a statement. [157640]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The Tornado GR4 achieved an initial Military Aircraft Release (MAR) in July last year and has been used extensively in training since. I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on 24 November 2000, Official Report, column 334W.

  In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 25 April 2001, Official Report, column 270W, I announced that, following further development work and extensive trials, the GR4 with improved software achieved a MAR on 10 April and we

  309W
  expect the first aircraft to be deployed operationally shortly. In the meantime, there has been no effect on the United Kingdom's ability to meet its commitments to the Joint Rapid Reaction Force which have been maintained by Tornado GR1, Jaguar and Harrier GR7 aircraft.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what change there has been in the number of UK nuclear devices since May 1997. [158785]

  Mr. Hoon
  In line with Government intentions set out in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, the UK now has a stockpile of less than 200 operationally available warheads.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Driver Fatigue
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of road accidents during each of the last five years in which driver tiredness was(a) the cause and (b) a contributing factor. [158740]

  Mr. Hill
  Statistics on the main contributory factors in road accidents are not available. Research on behalf of the Department indicates that for car drivers in particular, driver fatigue may have been a principal factor in around 10 per cent. of accidents across the road network in Great Britain.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of research into tiredness as a cause of road accidents. [158741]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department began its research programme on fatigue in December 1992 and research work continues. Data from the programme have greatly improved our understanding of the effects of fatigue on driving. The results have been developed into recommendations to drivers that have been incorporated into the Highway Code. In addition, the Department launched last August a long-term programme of publicity and advice on measures to counter driver fatigue.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Tiredness Kills notices; [158405]

  (2) how many Tiredness Kills signs there are on UK motorways; and where they are located. [158242]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Ben Chapman, dated 26 April 2001:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister Keith Hill to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about Tiredness Kills signs. You asked how many of these signs there are on UK motorways; where they are located; and what assessment has been made of their effectiveness.
  310W
  The Secretary of State's responsibilities and, therefore, the Agency's extend only to England, where these signs—which are usually worked "Tiredness Can Kill, Take a Break"—have been provided on the approaches to the following service areas:

  A1(M) Blyth (southbound only)

  M1 Leicester Forest East

  M1 Toddington

  M1 Trowell

  M1 Woodall

  M1 Wooley Edge

  M2 Medway

  M4 Leigh Delamere

  M4 Reading

  M5 Cullompton (southbound only)

  M5 Exeter

  M5 Frankley

  M6 Burton

  M6 Hilton Park

  M6 Knutsford

  M6 Sandbach

  M6 Southwaite

  M6 Stafford

  M6 Tebay

  M18 Doncaster North

  M23 Pease Pottage

  M25 Thurrock (southbound only)

  M40 Cherwell Valley

  M42 Tamworth

  M62 Ferry bridge

  M62 Hartshead Moor

  M69 Leicester Forest East (northbound only)

  M180 Doncaster North (westbound only)

  Except where indicated, the practice is to provide one such sign on each carriageway, making a total of around fifty across the network.
  We have made no systematic assessment of the effectiveness of the signs, though we do regard them as a useful reminder to motorway users of the dangers of continuing to drive when tired.

  Minimum Fuel Efficiency Standards
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made since May 1997 on introducing minimum fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles. [158660]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The UK played a leading role in the development of the voluntary agreement between the European Commission and European car manufacturers, secured in 1998. This commits manufacturers to improve the sales-weighted average fuel efficiency of new passenger cars by 25 per cent. on 1995 levels by 2008. Similar agreements have been reached between the European Commission and the Japanese and Korean car manufacturers' associations.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to restrict future fare increases by train operating companies. [158419]
  311W
  Mr. Hill
  Key fares are already capped at 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation and this will continue for replacement franchises. Train operators are free to price other fares according to market demand and competition from other forms of transport. But we expect train operators to bear in mind the need to increase passenger numbers when considering whether to increase unregulated fares.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the change in the level of public subsidy on rail fares. [158418]

  Mr. Hill
  No explicit assessment has been made. Subsidy levels were agreed at the time of franchising after a competitive bidding process. Franchising agreements protect key rail fares so that their prices are restricted by a cap that rises by PRI-1 per cent. annually. The key fares include all Saver tickets, or unrestricted standard returns where no Saver exists, and all standard weekly season tickets. Further regulation applies to London commuter fares, linking performance to the permitted increase.

  Transport Plan
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is asking the Commission for Integrated Transport to take to implement the findings of the CPRE report 'Running to Stand Still' on the effectiveness of the 10-year plan in reducing congestion. [158409]

  Mr. Hill
  The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) was established to provide independent advice to Government on the implementation of integrated transport policy and to review progress towards meeting the Government's objectives. Although the Government have not specifically asked CfIT to comment on the CPRE report, the commission has been asked to report on progress against the objectives and outcomes of the 10-year plan (including the target to reduce road congestion) and to advise on further policy measures. We are committed to periodic review of the 10-year plan and will pay close attention to CflT's advice in doing so.

  Housing Developments (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take measures to require at least half of all new housing developments in London to be for affordable rented property. [158981]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Mayor is expected to publish his initial proposals for the Spatial Development Strategy for London shortly. The Government's planning policy on the provision of affordable housing is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 and Circular 6–98. The Secretary of State will consider the Mayor's proposals in the light of this and other relevant guidance.

  2000 December

  January

  2001 February

  March

  Total

  Passengers

  2

  0

  7

  1

  10

  Railway staff

  0

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Other members of public

  0

  2

  1

  1

  4

  Trespassers and suicides

  23

  22

  20

  21

  86

  Total

  25

  24

  32

  23

  104

  Pleasure Craft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries have been caused by people drunk in charge of pleasure craft on British waterways in the last five years. [159010]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is not available centrally, although the indications are that few injuries were caused by people drunk in charge of pleasure craft on British waterways. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a small and irresponsible minority of those in charge of such craft pose a risk to safety by choosing to navigate while under the influence of excessive amounts of alcohol.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) increases in fares and (b) increase in passenger ridership on the London Underground are assumed in the financial projections upon which the London Underground PPP is based. [159006]

  Mr. Hill
  The financial projections London Underground and their advisers have carried out for the PPP assume that:

  (a) London Underground fares will do no more than keep pace with inflation once the PPP is in place.

  (b) Annual passenger ridership on the London Underground will increase by 20 per cent. over the next 10 years, with the main growth in ridership expected to be off-peak and in the 'shoulders' of the peak. The additional capacity and improved reliability that the PPP will bring should enable this growth in demand to be accommodated safely.

  Air Accidents
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have died in air accidents on British internal carrier flights in each of the last four months. [158865]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Two people have died in air accidents on British internal carrier flights in the last four months. Both men were on board the mail flight that crashed into the Firth of Forth on 27 February 2001.

  Railway Accidents
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people died on the railways in each of the last four months. [158866]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate reports that 104 people have died on the railways in Great Britain in the period 1 December 2000 to 31 March 2001. A breakdown of this data are provided in the table:
  313W
  The figures are provisional and may change due to coroners' findings at the subsequent inquests. Included in the February figures are the 10 people that died in the railway accident at Great Heck near Selby.

  BAe 146
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has had on the incident on a British European BAe 146 flight from Paris to Birmingham on 5 November 2000; and if he will make a statement. [159121]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is currently still investigating the exact cause of this incident. Research has been commissioned to establish whether, among other possibilities, engine oil fumes leaking into the cabin air released hazardous vapours, which could have contributed to the severity of this incident.

  As a precaution, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has issued an Airworthiness Directive that mandates inspections and remedial actions designed to reduce the likelihood of engine oil leaks into the cabin air supply. Instructions to flight crews have also been issued for measures to be taken to mitigate any potential effects should they experience or suspect contamination of the air supply.

  Once the AAIB report has been published, the CAA will be able to determine whether further action needs to be taken to minimise the risk of such an incident occurring again.

  Fuels (Environmental Assessment)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the environmental assessments of(a) fuels submitted to the Green Fuels Challenge and (b) lead replacement petrol. [159247]

  Mr. Hill
  Yes. We are making arrangements to publish the environmental assessments on the DETR website. I have also placed copies of the assessments in the Libraries of the House.

  Regional Planning Guidance (North-east)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish his response to the recommendations of the panel that conducted the public examination of draft Regional Planning Guidance for the north-east; and if he will make a statement. [159666]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing for public consultation proposed changes to the draft Regional Planning Guidance for the north-east (RPG1). They are largely based on the recommendations of the independent panel that held a public examination into the draft RPG1 last summer.

  Since then my right hon. Friend has published a number of new Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Notes, which have been taken into account in preparing the proposed
  314W
  changes. Important issues for the region to take forward are also contained in the Urban and Rural White Papers issued last November.

  Draft RPG was prepared by the Association of North East Councils (ANEC). Its overall strategy aims to create a more sustainable region and achieve urban and rural renaissance by focusing development in the region's main towns and cities making best use of previously developed land. We support this and, as recommended by the panel, we are proposing changes to ensure that the strategy is more clearly expressed and relates more clearly to the policy chapters. It is important that the implications for development plans and other strategies are clear in order to make a real difference on the ground.

  A key issue for the region is to stem population decline by encouraging economic growth and regeneration in a sustainable way. To achieve this we are proposing changes which identify four priorities for regeneration: to accelerate the renaissance of the Tyne, Wear and Tees conurbations; to provide job opportunities and support communities in the former coalfield areas; to adapt and revitalise the region's town and city centres; and secure rural regeneration to combat social exclusion, improve access to jobs and services, and sustain viable communities.

  We propose a review of the existing employment land allocated in development plans in the region to ensure that the north-east has a robust portfolio of sites in terms of size, quality and distribution in the most sustainable locations. In this context we would particularly welcome views during the consultation on the proposal to reduce the number of proposed new greenfield strategic employment sites from four to one. We propose to accept the panel's recommendation on this matter against the background of an over-provision of employment land in the region, and concern about the loss of greenfield sites. ANEC is committed to preparing an overall review of RPG1 in 2002–03, which will provide them with the opportunity to establish the need for additional strategic employment sites and set out their broad location or location criteria.

  We are proposing a modest reduction in the amount of additional housing in the region, as recommended by the panel. By reducing the need for additional greenfield housing allocations, it will help to concentrate house building more on areas where sites are already available particularly on previously-developed land. The new proposal is to provide 5,000 dwellings per year for the first half of the guidance period (1996–2006) and 6,000 per year for the period 2006–16. The distribution of housing is also proposed to change to reflect the strategy aim to locate the majority of new development in the region's conurbations to avoid unnecessary development in the countryside, and help to create a better balance between where people live and work. 4,000 of the proposed housing provision will be distributed as part of the early review of RPG1 in 2002–03 pending the completion of urban housing capacity studies by the constituent authorities in the region's conurbations.

  We also propose to set the region a challenging target of 65 per cent. of this additional housing to be provided on previously developed land and by reusing existing buildings.
  315W
  It is proposed to significantly revise the transport element of RPG taking on board many of the panel's recommendations. The changes seek to provide a framework for the integration of land use planning and transport and to set the context for the development of the Regional Transport Strategy, which is currently on-going in the region.

  There will now be a 12 week consultation period on the proposed changes which will end on Thursday 19 July 2001. Copies of the relevant documents have been placed in the House Library and provided to all of the region's MPs.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Broadcasting Ltd.
  Angela Smith
  To ask the President of the Council when she will announce the company appointed by the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd. to operate the televising of Parliament following the expiry of the current contract. [159365]

  Mrs. Beckett
  With the agreement of the appropriate Committees of both Houses the PARBUL operating and maintenance contracts for the five years from 1 August 2001 have been awarded to Bowtie Television Ltd.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consultation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new proposals he has to improve consultation between employees and employers. [157938]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced to the House on 18 January plans for a review of UK arrangements affecting collective redundancies. The review, which is ongoing, is examining how current provisions have operated in practice and whether more should be done to promote effective consultation with employees.

  Icelandic-water Trawlermen
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when payments will be made under the compensation scheme for former Icelandic-water trawlermen; and if he will make a statement. [158768]

  Mr. Byers
  Over, 1,200 payments have already been made. I expect the bulk of the claims to be dealt with by the end of July.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 22 March to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and which was passed on to his Department. [158857]

  Mr. Hain
  I have answered the letter today.

CABINET OFFICE

  Policy Announcements (Regional Impact Assessments)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the policy announcements since March 2000 which have been subject in advance to an assessment of their impact on the regions. [158497]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  (holding answer 23 April 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Regional Co-ordination Unit (RCU) was established in April 2000 as the centre of operations for the Government Offices for the Regions. A key role of the RCU is to consider proposals for new or extended area based initiatives. Formal arrangements for assessing the impact of such policies on the regions came into force in November 2000. Since then the following initiatives have been subject to the 'double key' assessment involving both the RCU and the Government Offices: Children's Fund, Creative Partnerships, Neighbourhood Management, Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Playing Fields and Community Green Spaces, Safer Communities Initiative and Sports Action Zones. The RCU has also considered a large number of other initiatives not subject to the full 'double key' procedures.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's Annual report for 2000 will be published. [157484]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) spending for 1999–2000 and expenditure plans for 2000–01 were included in figures reported in the Department of Social Security's Departmental Report published in April 2000.

  The BFI's priority is to deliver reports following inspections of individual local authorities and DSS Agencies. The BFI is nearing completion of its phase 5 programme of inspections. This is a key phase which covers the 30 local authorities with the highest spend on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Once the BFI has published the last of these reports, it will be in a position to provide a comprehensive report on its work to March 2001.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for what reason the National Benefit Fraud Hotline number was not included in Level 1 of the current Targeting Fraud advertising campaign; how long each level will run for; and if the campaign will continue during a dissolution of Parliament; [157079]

  (2) if he will break down the costs of the Targeting Fraud advertising campaign into (a) the cost of the pilot campaign, (b) the cost of television advertising, (c) the cost of radio advertising, (d) the cost of newspaper advertising and (e) other costs; [157074]

  (3) how the Targeting Fraud advertising campaign has been altered to include the findings of the research into the pilot campaign. [157080]
  317W
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Government are committed to cracking down on benefit fraud. In his report "The Informal Economy", Lord Grabiner recommended testing the use of advertising as a tool for changing public attitudes. The North West Pilot Campaign was developed during 2000 in line with this recommendation.

  The overall objectives of the campaign, were to positively reinforce honest behaviour, to create a climate of intolerance to benefit fraud and to undermine the social acceptability of it. It was designed to work on two levels: Level 1, to make 'fiddling' harder to justify by showing that fraud is unfair; and Level 2, to create a climate of unease by using facts to build a fear of detection. Considerable development work was undertaken and the evaluation indicated that the campaign was effective in changing public attitudes towards benefit fraud. In taking the campaign to a national audience as part of a long-term public information programme, only minor refinements were considered necessary.

  The national TV advertising did not include the hotline number because it was aimed at a wide audience and was designed to change public attitudes about the social acceptability of fraud (ie a Level 1 objective). Other material did include the hotline number because it was intended to create unease among fraudsters (ie a Level 2 objective).

  The first phase of the national information campaign concluded on Saturday 31 March. The campaign will not run in the event of Parliament being dissolved under the normal rules relating to Her Majesty's Government advertising.

  So far, the costs of the Targeting Fraud information programme have been £2.2 million for the north-west pilot, including production, media buying, website development and research. The costs for the March phase of the national campaign are £3.2 million for TV advertising, £0.6 million for radio advertising, £0.7 million for press advertising, and £0.2 million for other costs.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what publicity campaigns his Department plans to run in the current financial year. [158713]

  Mr. Rooker
  Plans are in place to continue the anti-fraud campaign, following on from the start of the national activity in March. We also plan to continue the pensions education advertising campaign which began in January.

  The Department also has a number of advertorials booked, which will explain the new bereavement benefits available to men.

  Benefit Fraud Investigation Service
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the last Benefit Fraud Investigation Service annual report was published; and when the next one is due to be published. [158690]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Investigation Service does not publish a separate annual report. Sections on safeguarding Social Security are included in both the 318W
  Benefits Agency annual report, due to be published in July 2001, and the Departmental annual report which was published on 30 March 2001.

  Benefits Information Guide
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make copies of the latest edition of the Benefits Information Guide available to hon. Members. [158689]

  Mr. Rooker
  The latest edition of the Benefits Information Guide is available in the Library. The 2001–02 edition will be available shortly.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners receive(a) a partial basis state pension, (b) basic state pension increments, (c) a basic state pension increase for dependent child, d) a graduated retirement benefit and (e) SERPS. [158675]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Retirement pensioners resident in Great Britain and overseas at 30 September 2000

  Thousand

  All pensioners

  In receipt of partial Basic State pension

  2,941.6

  In receipt of Basic State pension increments

  1,156.4

  In receipt of Basic State pension

  —

  Increase for dependent child(ren)

  18.1

  In receipt of Graduated Retirement Benefit

  8.690.3

  In receipt of SERPS

  6,389.9

  Notes:

  1. Includes all retirement pensioners resident in Great Britain and overseas.

  2. Numbers with a partial basic state pension exclude those pensioners who receive 100 per cent. basic State Pension based on their own national insurance record and also those pensioners who receive 60 per cent. (full rate) basic State Pension based on a spouse's national insurance record.

  3. Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Based on a 5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 30 September 2000.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the way pension funds handle grievances. [159151]

  Mr. Rooker
  Occupational pension schemes are required to have a two-stage internal dispute resolution procedure, which they must make known to members. The second stage written decision by the trustees or managers of the scheme must include statements about the roles of the Office for Pensions Advisory Service (OPAS), to whom they can go for assistance, and the Pensions Ombudsman, to whom they can refer grievance if they remain dissatisfied.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to require pension trusts to give reasons for refusal(a) to reward a disability pension and (b) of arbitration following such refusal; [159054]

  (2) if he will make a statement on pension trusts' refusal to divulge the reason for rejecting ill-health pension applications; [159052]
  319W
  (3) what plans he has to compel pension trusts to divulge the reason for refusal of ill-health pension applications. [159051]

  Mr. Rooker
  Occupational schemes are not required to pay pension benefits before the normal pension age for the scheme. Some scheme rules do provide for pension benefits to be paid earlier for reasons such as ill-health. This is usually at the discretion of the scheme trustees and there is no legal requirement for them to provide reasons where they reject an ill-health pension application, although many schemes regard it as good administrative practice to do so.

  Where an ill-health pension application has been rejected, the member can ask for the matter to be reconsidered under the scheme's internal dispute resolution procedure, and can seek assistance from the Office for Pensions Advisory Service (OPAS). If he remains dissatisfied he can make a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to require contributors to occupational pension schemes to have the rights of appeal following an ombudsman's determination. [159049]

  Mr. Rooker
  Determinations by the Pensions Ombudsman can be appealed against to the High Court on a point of law.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that members of pension trusts have a right to be consulted before(a) trusts are restructured and (b) members are transferred to other schemes. [159053]

  Mr. Rooker
  Employers who provide occupational pension schemes do so voluntarily and, ultimately, they decide the nature of the scheme and its benefit structure. Trustees are required to provide extensive information to members about the scheme and their rights to pension benefits.

  Generally, members must consent to a transfer of their accrued pension rights to another pension scheme. When employers are taken over, merge, or restructure their pension provision a consequent bulk transfer of members' accrued rights can be made without consent, provided that an actuary certifies that the rights to be acquired in the receiving scheme are broadly no less favourable than the rights to be transferred.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the rules governing occupational pensions schemes and the way they are vetted to protect contributors. [159050]

  Mr. Rooker
  The framework of legislation governing occupational pension schemes is intended to provide protection for members without imposing undue burdens on employers who provide those schemes. Pension schemes also have their own rules which have to satisfy certain requirements for tax purposes. They may contain discretionary provisions which are exercised by the trustees.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library up-dated versions 320W
  of tables 1 to 11 at the back of the 2000 Departmental Report (Cm 4614); and if he will reintroduce these tables in future departmental reports. [158693]

  Mr. Rooker
  Following the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) there have been a number of changes to the core tables produced in line with Treasury guidance and contained in all departmental reports. The aim of the tables is to provide an analysis of departmental expenditure plans. These are presented in the 2001 Departmental Report (Cm 5115) in resource terms, showing resource consumption and capital investment; Voted and Non-Voted expenditure and the plans agreed in the Spending Review for Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) and Annually Managed Expenditure (AME).

  The format of the published Core Tables and Main Estimate Tables is intended to anticipate, as far as possible, the format of the Resource Accounts that will be published next year in respect of 2001–02. As in previous years the published departmental report includes key information on local authority expenditure (Table 8), administration costs (Table 9) and staff numbers (Table 10). Departmental Expenditure Limits, in cash terms are set out for the years 1995–96 to 2000–01 in Table 11. Detailed plans are set out in Table 4 and a high level summary provided in Table 1.

  We are currently considering what further information might be provided and the most effective way of communicating it. We hope to make an announcement in the near future.

  Automated Credit Transfers
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent his target of having 85 per cent. of customers having benefits paid into their bank by 2005 is consistent with the Government's plan to complete the transition to ACT by 2005; and if he will make a statement on his plans for those customers who do not receive payment by ACT by 2005. [159166]

  Mr. Rooker
  These two aims are entirely consistent. Payment directly into bank or building society accounts will become the normal method of payment for benefits and pensions starting in 2003 and completing in 2005.

  We have always recognised that there will be some people who we will be unable to pay directly through bank or building society accounts, and some payments that cannot be made this way. This is reflected in our Public Service Agreement target of 85 per cent. of our customers having their benefits paid into bank or building society accounts by 2005. For those payments which we cannot make directly into bank or building society accounts, we are considering what alternative simple electronic money transmission system, which could also be accessed at post offices, will be commercially available.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made on reducing his Department's sickness absence rates; what baseline figure was used to assess his Department's compliance with its PSA target on reducing sickness rates; what the Department's actual figure for 2000 was; and if he will make a statement. [159168]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's PSA targets are to achieve a reduction on sickness absence rates of 20 per cent. by the end of 2001 and 30 per cent. by the end of 2003. The targets are measured against the 1998 baseline figure of 12.1 average working days lost per person.

  All appropriate recommendations of the Cabinet Office report "Working Well Together" have been introduced and action plans are in place across the Department to improve performance in managing attendance.

  Performance for the year 2000 was 12.6 average working days lost. Performance was adversely affected at the start of the year by the influenza outbreak which was higher than normal.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sanction has been applied to his Department in cases where it has failed to meet its public service agreement targets. [159167]

  Mr. Rooker
  The purpose of the Public Service Agreement is not to set sanctions. It is to set high level objectives and challenging targets which can be properly measured and monitored.

  The Department's performance against its 1998 Public Service Agreement targets was set out in the Social Security Departmental Report (Cm 5115, March 2001). This shows that the majority of the targets have been met or are on course to be met. Only one target had not been met—that relating to payment for goods and services within 30 days of receipt.

  Pensioners
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the administrative cost of allowing pensioners a choice between receiving the Winter Fuel Payment and free television licence or a higher rate of state retirement pension. [159665]

  Mr. Darling
  The estimated costs are in the table.

  £ million

  Cost category

  Year one cost

  Annual cost thereafter1

  System changes2

  6.0

  0.0

  Sending out mail-shot to 10.5 million pensioners3

  9.0

  9.0

  Processing the responses to the mail-shot4

  89.0

  89.0

  Totals

  104.0

  98.0

  1 The costing assumes that pensioners would be assessed annually.

  2 This cost covers the IT changes to DSS computer systems which would need to be made in order to give pensioners the option of how the payments were made to them. Several different computer systems would need to be partially recoded. The cost here relates mainly to man hours dedicated to recoding. We have assumed that

  322W
  these system changes would be made in such a way as to allow pensioners to subsequently change their payment option without further need for recoding.

  3 This covers the cost of mailing forms to 10.5 million pensioners every year asking them to choose how the payments, are made to them.

  4 This covers the costs of processing the responses to the annual mailshot and would be the largest single component of the extra cost. It is estimated that, to the extent that processing 10.5 million payment request options every year was possible at all, it would require the equivalent of an additional 3,000 full-time civil servants.

HEALTH

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's total gross running costs were for travel, including fares, subsistence, accommodation and other expenses met from public funds but excluding such costs for journeys and stays exclusively within the United Kingdom(a) in the three years ending on 30 April 1997 and (b) in the 12 months ending 30 April 1997. [157626]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department spent £499,905 in 1995–96 and £540,380 in 1996–97 on overseas travel and subsistence. Prior to this information was not gathered on a similar basis.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total gross running costs were to his Department in the 12 months ending 31 December 1996 of entertaining by Ministers and officials. [157625]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department does not collect the information in the form requested. Expenditure on hospitality for 1996–97 financial year amounted to £105,192.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits abroad have been made by officials on departmental business in the(a) three years ending 30 April 1997 and (b) 12 months ending 30 April 1997. [157624]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  NHS CT Scanners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS acute trusts which have NHS CT scanners, indicating for each trust the ratio of beds to scanners. [157016]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The following data for numbers of acute hospital beds in trusts come from the National Health Service Executive 1999–2000.

  The numbers of CT scanners is derived from a survey carried out in 2000.

  The information in the table is correct as of 1 April 2001. Statistical information is updated on a monthly basis and is available at www.canceruk.net.
  323W

  Region name

  Trust name

  Acute beds per CT

  Trent

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  883

  West Midlands

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  816

  North West

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  814

  South West

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

  748

  North West

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  741

  London

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  732

  Eastern

  Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust

  720

  West Midlands

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  683

  South West

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  672

  South West

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  663

  North West

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  658

  South West

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust

  654

  South West

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  650

  Trent

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital NHS Trust

  643

  North West

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  643

  South West

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  629

  Northern and Yorkshire

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  627

  North West

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  626

  Eastern

  Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust

  617

  North West

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  617

  North West

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  612

  South West

  North Bristol NHS Trust

  598

  Northern and Yorkshire

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  582

  North West

  Oldham NHS Trust

  582

  South East

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  578

  South East

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  577

  South East

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  573

  North West

  Stockport NHS Trust

  571

  Eastern

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  563

  West Midlands

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  561

  North West

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust

  539

  South West

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  538

  West Midlands

  Sandwell Healthcare NHS Trust

  536

  Trent

  Northern General Hospital NHS Trust

  534

  Trent

  The Kings Mill Centre for Health Care Services NHS Trust

  533

  Trent

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  530

  North West

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  529

  South West

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  529

  West Midlands

  City Hospital NHS Trust

  528

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Gateshead Health NHS Trust

  527

  London

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  519

  North West

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  517

  London

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  504

  Trent

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  500

  South West

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  499

  London

  St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trust

  498

  Eastern

  Southend Hospital NHS Trust

  495

  Northern and Yorkshire

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  488

  North West

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  486

  Northern and Yorkshire

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  477

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust

  475

  South East

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  475

  Eastern

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  474

  South West

  Poole Hospitals NHS Trust

  463

  Eastern

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  460

  Trent

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS

  459

  South East

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust

  449

  Eastern

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  448

  North West

  The Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  447

  South West

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  445

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals NHS Trust

  443

  Trent

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  439

  South East

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  435

  West Midlands

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  432

  Trent

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust

  431

  South East

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  429

  London

  The Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  429

  South East

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust

  426

  Eastern

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  425

  Eastern

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  423

  South East

  Medway NHS Trust

  421

  Trent

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  418

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  417

  324W 325W

  Region name

  Trust name

  Acute beds per CT

  West Midlands

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust

  416

  North West

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  414

  London

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  413

  North West

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  413

  South West

  Salisbury Healthcare NHS Trust

  405

  South East

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  402

  North West

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  401

  South East

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust

  401

  West Midlands

  Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust

  400

  West Midlands

  South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust

  398

  London

  Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust

  395

  South East

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  388

  North West

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  387

  London

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  386

  South East

  Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust

  386

  Eastern

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  381

  South East

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  379

  West Midlands

  University Hospitals of Coventry And Warwickshire NHS Trust

  378

  North West

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  377

  West Midlands

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  374

  North West

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  368

  Trent

  North East Lincolnshire NHS Trust

  367

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  367

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  362

  London

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  361

  South East

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  358

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Huddersfield Health Care Services NHS Trust

  356

  London

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  354

  South East

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  352

  London

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  350

  London

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  342

  London

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  340

  Northern and Yorkshire

  South Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust

  336

  Eastern

  East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  335

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  333

  South East

  Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust

  333

  West Midlands

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  333

  Trent

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  332

  London

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  330

  South East

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  330

  Trent

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  329

  London

  West Middlesex University NHS Trust

  326

  South West

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  325

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  324

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Airedale NHS Trust

  322

  London

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  322

  Eastern

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  322

  South West

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  321

  London

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  316

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  315

  North West

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  314

  London

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  312

  Eastern

  The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  311

  North West

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  310

  London

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  309

  South West

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  308

  South West

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  306

  North West

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  300

  Northern and Yorkshire

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  299

  London

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  299

  Northern and Yorkshire

  The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  298

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust

  292

  London

  The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  291

  North West

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  290

  London

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  290

  Eastern

  Kings Lynn and Wisbech Hospitals NHS Trust

  289

  Eastern

  Bedford Hospitals NHS Trust

  286

  Northern and Yorkshire

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  285

  North West

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  283

  South East

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  281

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  281

  South East

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust

  275

  London

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  275

  326W 327W

  Region name

  Trust name

  Acute beds per CT

  West Midlands

  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust

  274

  West Midlands

  George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust

  273

  South East

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  271

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  270

  Northern and Yorkshire

  West Cumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  270

  South East

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

  269

  London

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  265

  Eastern

  Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust

  259

  South East

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  247

  South West

  Weston Area Health NHS Trust

  243

  South East

  Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust

  241

  North West

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  241

  West Midlands

  The Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  239

  Trent

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Health Services NHS Trust

  238

  Trent

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  237

  North West

  Royal Liverpool Childrens NHS Trust

  236

  London

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  235

  South East

  Mid Sussex NHS Trust

  230

  North West

  Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust

  228

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Northallerton Health Services NHS Trust

  227

  Eastern

  West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  216

  London

  The Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  213

  South East

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  210

  London

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  204

  London

  Barts and The London NHS Trust

  203

  London

  The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  201

  West Midlands

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  194

  London

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  192

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  188

  North West

  The Cardiothoracic Centre-Liverpool NHS Trust

  186

  London

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  185

  Eastern

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  181

  West Midlands

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital NHS Trust

  172

  North West

  The Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  158

  North West

  Halton General Hospital NHS Trust

  142

  Trent

  Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  141

  North West

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  139

  South East

  The Royal West Sussex NHS Trust

  135

  West Midlands

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  124

  London

  The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  124

  North West

  Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust

  111

  North West

  Clatterbridge Centre For Oncology NHS Trust

  57

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what standards are applied to determine the number of NHS CT scanners per head of the population for each NHS region. [157017]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The provision of diagnostic CT scanners is decided locally in the context of regional capital investment plans.

  The NHS Cancer Plan announced new investment of £570 million, which will address inequalities in access to services for cancer, including the provision of diagnostic CT scanners.

  For funding of CT scanners we have produced a database of the numbers of CT scanners per head of population and have calculated the number of additional machines required in order to bring up the numbers in those regions which currently have a short-fall compared to the mean number of CT scanners per head of population nationally.

  This equates to:

  seven additional machines for South East region

  seven additional machines for Eastern region

  five additional machines for South West region

  328W

  two additional machines for Trent region

  one additional machine for West Midlands region

  22 additional machines in all.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio of population to the number of CT scanners is in each NHS region. [157018]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Data for population estimates have been obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Data for the numbers of CT scanners have been derived from a survey of trusts carried out in 2000. Data correct as at 1 April 2001. More detailed information is available at www.canceruk.net, where the statistical information is updated on a monthly basis.

  Region

  CT scanners per region

  Population

  Population per CT scanner

  London

  58

  7,285,045

  125,604

  Northern and Yorkshire

  41

  6,335,729

  154,530

  North West

  44

  6,595,330

  149,894

  South West

  21

  4,935,669

  235,032

  West Midlands

  29

  5,335,597

  183,986

  South East

  40

  8,698,745

  217.469

  Trent

  26

  5,147,851

  197,994

  Eastern

  22

  5,418,898

  246,313

  Meningitis C Injections
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of epilepsy have been recorded between 1 November 1999 and 28 February 2001 related to yellow cards submitted in connection with meningitis C injections; [157552]

  (2) what research is being conducted into the incidence of cases of epilepsy which may be related to meningitis C injections. [157549]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 1 November 1999, a national immunisation campaign commenced to vaccinate all children under 18 years with one of the new meningococcal C conjugate vaccines. The campaign finished at the end of January 2001. As of 16 February 2001, 18.5 million doses of meningitis C vaccine had been distributed.

  The Medicines Control Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicine (CSM) has received three Yellow Card reports of suspected epilepsy following vaccination with the meningococcal C conjugate vaccines. A total of 291 reports of suspected seizures have been reported in association with the meningococcal C conjugate vaccines. CSM has concluded that there have been very rare reports of seizures following meningitis C vaccination and individuals have usually rapidly recovered. A significant number of the reported seizures are thought to have been faints.

  A report of a particular suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by the drug. The Yellow Card data can not be used to calculate the incidence rate of a particular suspected adverse reaction, nor can it be used to measure changes in the rate against time.

  The Medical Research Council has research programmes looking into epilepsy and meningitis, but no program that is examining the incidence of epilepsy after meningococcal C conjugate vaccination.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he is conducting into the incidence of cases of attention deficit and hyperactivity syndrome which may be related to meningitis C injections; [157550]

  (2) what change there has been in recorded cases of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder between 1 November 1999 and 28 February 2001; [157554]

  (3) how many cases of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder have been recorded between 1 November 1999 and 28 February 2001, which are related to yellow cards submitted in connection with meningitis C injections. [157551]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicine (CSM) has received one report through the Yellow Card Scheme of hyperactivity aggravated in a child with a history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in association with the meningitis C vaccines. There have been no reports of Hyperkinetic Disorder or any other term related to ADHD.

  ADHD is being increasingly recognised in the United Kingdom as a significant mental health problem among children and adolescents and to a lesser extent, among
  330W
  adults. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has estimated that approximately 1 per cent. of all school-aged children (about 69,000 six to 16-year-olds in England) met the diagnostic criteria for Hyperkinetic Disorder, the more severe type of ADHD. The prevalence of all types of ADHD is considerably higher, around 5 per cent. of school-aged children (345,000 six to 16-year-olds in England). There are no data on the change in recorded cases of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder between 1 November 1999 and 28 February 2001 as this information is not collected centrally.

  No research is currently being conducted into the incidence of cases of attention deficit and hyperactivity syndrome which may be related to meningitis C injections.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire(a) dated 6 February and 19 March regarding Miss Holland of Doveridge in Derbyshire, (b) dated 26 February regarding the treatment and diagnosis of bowel cancer, (c) dated 5 February and 7 March regarding the funding of hospices and (d) dated 26 February and 20 March regarding synthetic treatment for haemophiliac patients. [158074]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding 23 April 2001]: A reply to the hon. Member's letter of 26 February regarding the treatment and diagnosis of bowel cancer was sent on 11 April. Replies to the hon. Member's letters of 5 February and 7 March regarding the funding of hospices was sent on 11 April. A reply to the hon. Member's letters of 26 February and 20 March regarding synthetic treatment of haemophiliac patients was sent on 9 April.

  Unfortunately, the Department did not receive the original copies of the hon. Member's letters of 6 and 19 February regarding his constituent Miss Holland. Copies have been requested and a reply will be provided as a matter of urgency.

  Test Purchasing
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on the use of children of compulsory school age in undertaking test purchasing on behalf of local trading standards departments during school hours; and if he will make a statement. [158491]

  Mr. Hutton
  Children below the minimum school leaving age who may be asked to assist trading standards officers in the execution of their statutory duties are deemed not to be employed, and child employment legislation does not apply.

  Nicotine Replacement Therapies
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on sustained and co-ordinated health education campaigns aimed at reducing smoking in England in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01; what the figure will be for 2001–02; and if he will reconcile these figures with those in paragraph 6.38 of the 1998 White Paper, "Smoking Kills". [158351]
  331W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  6.5

  1999–2000

  15.9

  2000–01

  13.73

  2001–02

  1—

  1 Yet to be finally determined

  The 1998 White Paper "Smoking Kills" set out an overall strategy on tobacco control including expenditure of some £50 million on health education and up to £60 million on cessation services.

  Since "Smoking Kills" the Government have made first Buproprion (Zyban) and more recently all nicotine replacement therapy products available on National Health Service prescription and appropriate increases have been made in the unified budgets to meet the expected cost of these developments.

  The overall sums devoted to tackling tobacco will comfortably exceed the sums committed in "Smoking Kills".

  Viagra
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the list of medical conditions for which Viagra is prescribable on the National Health Service. [158474]

  Ms Stuart
  On 11 December 2000 we commenced an eight-week period of consultation about the operation of the current policy. We are now considering carefully all comments and views received during the consultation period and will make a decision about the operation of the current policy in due course.

  Appointments (Age Limit)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158106]

  Ms Stuart
  We are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed to public bodies. There are no age limits for public appointments to National Health Service trusts, health authorities, primary care trusts, special health authorities or Department of Health executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies. Currently the youngest board member is aged 26, and the oldest 86.

  Appointments to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the National Health Service Tribunal, the Protection of Children Act Tribunal and the Registered Homes Tribunal are subject normally to a lower age limit of 35 and an upper age limit of 62. The age limits are applied flexibly and are based on advice from the Lord Chancellor. They are made clear in any advertisements for such posts. The lower age limit is intended to give the public the confidence that those appointed have sufficient experience and maturity to fill the different roles involved appropriately.

  Hospices
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made as to the additional costs for hospices arising from extra regulations his Department has introduced for palliative care; [159042]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reluctance of public bodies to fund the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice; [159041]

  (3) if he will estimate the savings to health and social services budgets arising from the service provided by the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice; [159041]

  (4) what is the level of public funding for the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice as a percentage of its revenue costs; [159040]

  (5) what funding is available to hospices from his Department; and what guidelines he has issued concerning the percentage of revenue costs that should be met by local health authorities. [159039]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is for the National Health Service locally to make arrangements for financial support for hospices, given the extent of local diversity both of the services provided and of alternative sources of local support. Accordingly, we have issued no guidance specifying a set percentage of hospice revenue costs that individual health authorities and primary care groups should meet.

  We are, however, committed to increased investment in palliative care services overall. The NHS Cancer Plan set out one commitment to increase NHS investment in specialist palliative care by £50 million by 2004, to end inequalities in access to care and enable the NHS to make a realistic contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service. As a first step, the NHS Plan Implementation Programme for 2001–02 requires all cancer networks, in partnership with voluntary organisations, to develop and begin implementing costed strategic plans for palliative care. This is the context within which the NHS contribution to individual hospices such as the Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice will be considered.

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions on which(a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department have met the Commissioner for Public Appointments in the last year to discuss her recommendations for the reform of appointments to NHS trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities. [159011]

  Ms Stuart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not meet the Commissioner for Public Appointments in the course of the last year. I met the commissioner on 29 November 2000 specifically to discuss her recommendations on appointments to National Health Service boards. Officials met the commissioner on numerous occasions during the year in the course of which her recommendations were discussed.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what undertakings he has given to the Commissioner for Public Appointments regarding appointments to NHS trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities. [159015]
  333W
  Ms Stuart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the Commissioner for Public Appointments in July 2000 of his intention to establish an independent appointments commission with responsibility for all non-executive appointments to National Health Service boards. The National Health Service Appointments Commission was established on 1 April 2001 under the chairmanship of Sir William Wells, and will begin to make appointments shortly.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions in the last year on which hon. Members have made representations on particular appointments to(a) NHS trusts, (b) primary care trusts and (c) health authorities, giving in each case the date the representation was received, the name of the hon. Member and the name of the candidate. [159016]

  Ms Stuart
  Until last year the practice followed by the Government and under the previous Administration was that hon. Members were automatically consulted by the regional chair on all non-executive appointments to National Health Service boards before recommendations were made to Ministers. In response to the recommendations contained in the report of the Commissioner for Public Appointments on appointments to National Health Service boards, the practice of consulting hon. Members was discontinued in September 2001.

  Doctors' Public Statements
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued to NHS trust chief executives in respect of public statements by doctors working for trusts. [157904]

  Mr. Denham
  On 25 September 1997, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, then Minister of State for Health, wrote to National Health Service trusts and health authorities reinforcing guidance issued in Executive Letter (93)51—"Guidance for staff on relations with the public and the media". In his letter my right hon. Friend said that he wanted to ensure that any member of staff working in the NHS feels able to raise concerns about health care matters in a responsible manner without fear of victimisation.

  The Department of Health issued further guidance to all NHS trusts and health authorities on 27 August 1999, following the coming into force of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Health Service Circular 1999/198—"The Public Interest Disclosure Act"—states that every NHS trust and health authority should have in place policies and procedures which comply with the provisions of the Act. A copy of HSC 1999–198 is available in the Library.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue a definition of reasonable charges in respect of local authorities and home care for persons in receipt of moneys from the Independent Living Fund. [158979]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's draft guidance 'Fairer Charges for Home Care and other Non-Residential Social Services', was issued for consultation on 3 January. It includes proposed guidance on assessment of charges for 334W
  people receiving care jointly agreed by local councils and the independent living funds. Final guidance will be issued in the summer.

  My Department is working closely with the Department of Social Security in developing proposals for the future of the independent living funds following the end of the consultation period for the quinquennial review.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 2001, c. 333–34W]: 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 Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies are 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 Kingston-upon-Hull 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, 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.
  335W
  Kingston-upon-Hull 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

  46.297

  —

  —

  2001–02

  58.153

  11.2

  25.6

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Kingston-upon-Hull 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

  2,333

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,651

  1,399

  1,896

  Prevention grant2

  —

  126

  189

  Carers grant3

  —

  127

  323

  446

  Children's grant3

  —

  500

  795

  1,980

  Mental Health Core grant

  329

  556

  642

  41,059

  Training Support Grant

  304

  274

  267

  4279

  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

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

  4 Indicative allocation

  North Bristol NHS Trust
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the average hours worked by the NHS nursing staff at North Bristol NHS Trust in each of the last six months; and if he will make a statement on the trust's policy of encouraging nursing staff to work additional shifts. [158945]

  Ms Stuart
  Information on the hours worked by nursing staff is not collected centrally.

  The Department has always encouraged all National Health Service trusts to comply fully with the requirements of the Working Time Regulations including ensuring staff conform with the 48-hour weekly limit. However, there is provision in the regulations for staff to voluntarily sign an individual waiver form if they are content to work additional hours. Of course, the trust is still bound by the employer's duty of care to both the health and safety of both the employee and the patient.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his Department's role is in the new Wembley project. [157318]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: The Wembley project is primarily a matter for the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. Clearly, the Department takes a close interest in the situation regarding the
  336W
  stadium, not least because of the National Lottery element of its funding. The Department is also helping the efforts of the Wembley Task Force to regenerate the area surrounding the stadium.

  Ministerial Visit (Spain)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was to public funds of the Minister for Sport's recent visit to Spain. [158899]

  Kate Hoey
  £427.

  Prince Michael
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what accommodation within the occupied royal palaces is allocated to Prince Michael of Kent and his staff; on what basis the rent is determined; on what basis rent is updated; when he first occupied this accommodation; by how much it has increased to its current level; and what other costs he incurs. [159153]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Prince Michael of Kent occupies an apartment at Kensington Palace. No staff are provided with residential accommodation. When Prince Michael was granted his licence to occupy the apartment in 1979 it was on a rent-free basis. However, he makes a £3,500 contribution each year towards the cost of maintenance. The contribution is increased in line with inflation. All utility costs are paid by Prince Michael.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sittings (Costs)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the President of the Council what the cost is for each 15 minute period the House sits after 10 pm. [157751]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I have been asked to reply. It has been estimated that in a typical full year the cost of the House sitting after 10 pm is some £750,000. The average cost per night is around £10,000.

  The main costs associated with late night sittings arise from allowances to staff, overtime for staff of the House and the Metropolitan police, and late night transport.

  It would not be meaningful to break these costs down by 15 minute increments after 10 pm.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members have asked Parliamentary Questions requesting statistical information on the effects of Government policy since May 1997 pertaining(a) to their own constituency and (b) to the constituency of another hon. Member; at what cost in each case; and if she will make a statement. [158329]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Library of the House has confirmed that it is not possible to extract this information from the POLIS databases but I can say that no such questions have been tabled to me.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Child Slavery
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) cocoa importers and (b) UK-based chocolate manufacturers on the working conditions of those who produce the crop in the country of origin. [158966]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK is firmly committed to eradicating slavery and bonded labour worldwide. I have spoken to the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance. My Department has also been in touch with the Cocoa Association. Both assured us they were addressing the issues of child and slave labour in cocoa production. We are looking at ways we can work together to increase this effort and further meetings will be held in the future.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance regarding the issue of slavery in West African cocoa plantations; and if he will make a statement. [158980]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK is firmly committed to eradicating slavery and bonded labour worldwide. I have spoken to the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, who assured me they were determined to address the issues of child and slave labour in the production of cocoa. We are looking at ways we can work together to increase this effort and further meetings will be held in the future.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of child employment and slavery is undertaken by UK representatives in(a) Benin, (b) Nigeria, (c) Cameroon, (d) Senegal, (e) the Ivory Coast and (f) Ghana; and if he will make a statement on Government policy in this respect. [158967]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK is firmly committed to eradicating slavery and bonded labour worldwide. The UK played a leading role in drafting and securing agreement to the International Labour Convention 182 on the worst forms of Child Labour, which in West Africa has been ratified by Chad, Central African Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. The UK closely monitors the human rights situation in the region. We are working with international and non-governmental organisations to address the problem of child slavery, and are looking at what more we can do to increase these efforts.

  Chagos Islands
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the USA concerning the possible return to Diego Garcia of the former residents and their descendents on the Chagos Islands. [158969]

  Mr. Battle
  The High Court judgment concerning possible resettlement in the British Indian Ocean Territory, though not specifically in Diego Garcia, has naturally been discussed in our regular talks with the American authorities about the use of the Territory for defence purposes.
  338W
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held with the Government of Mauritius concerning the future sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. [158968]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear both in a letter to the Mauritian Foreign Minister and during a meeting in January this year, that the UK will continue to maintain sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, but that when they are no longer needed for defence purposes, we will be willing to cede them to Mauritius subject to the requirements of international law.

  Libya
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received to undertake a judicial inquiry into the circumstances regarding United Kingdom participation into the bombing of Libya in 1986. [158974]

  Mr. Wilson
  Neither the Foreign Secretary nor I have received a request for a judicial inquiry into this matter.

  China
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the EU's reasons for not co-sponsoring a resolution on China at the 57 UN Commission for Human Rights. [157449]

  Mr. Battle
  EU unity is important to make our policy of critical dialogue with China as effective as possible. We have placed high importance on achieving such unity since the US began sponsoring resolutions on China at the Commission on Human Rights in 1999.

  EU Foreign Ministers agreed at the General Affairs Council, on 19 March, not to co-sponsor the US resolution on China at the UN Commission on Human Rights, but to strengthen the EU common position by actively lobbying against the expected Chinese no-action motion, for the first time since 1996.

  EU Foreign Ministers agreed to actively continue the policy of critical dialogue on human rights issues with China—an approach they believed would have been affected detrimentally by co-sponsoring the resolution. They made it clear, however, that further continuation of the dialogue would depend on progress being achieved on the ground. EU Foreign Ministers agreed to assess the results of the dialogue on a regular basis.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 2001,Official Report, column 797W, on entry clearance, for what reasons he judged the Minister for Europe the best man for the job; what (a) qualifications, (b) experience and (c) qualities to take into consideration; which other Ministers he considered; and if he will make a statement. [158357]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had on human rights in Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [158734]

  Mr. Vaz
  We remain concerned about Turkey's human rights record. I have not had any recent discussions on human rights in Turkey, but we regularly raise concerns about specific human rights cases at senior official level with the Turkish authorities. We continue to closely monitor the human rights situation in Turkey. In addition, the issue forms a regular part of the dialogue between Turkey and the European Union, and will be on the agenda for the meeting between EU and Turkish Political Directors on 26 April.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) of 20 March 2001,Official Report, column 112W, on Gibraltar (a) what obligations have been accepted by Her Majesty's Government arising out of the Matthews judgment, (b) how many electors will be enfranchised as citizens of (i) Gibraltar and (ii) Spain, (c) what options for representation he is assessing and (d) when the representation of Gibraltar will next be discussed at the General Affairs Council; and if a report from its working group will be published prior to that date. [158578]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Matthews judgment requires the UK to extend the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar. The UK unequivocally accepts this obligation. We are considering all possible options for achieving this before the 2004 European Parliament elections.

  The precise manner in which Gibraltar will be enfranchised is under consideration. The electorate in Gibraltar is currently estimated at about 18,800. We have made clear that there is no question of Gibraltarians resident in Gibraltar being made to vote in Spain.

  The UK has proposed an amendment to the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections to extend the franchise to Gibraltar. This amendment remains on the agenda of the relevant Council working group. No date has yet been fixed for discussions of this issue at the General Affairs Council. There are no plans to publish a written report from the working group.

  Belarusian Popular Front
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government will take in relation to the detention of(a) Mr. Vincuk Viachorka, Chairman and (b) Mr. Ales Belyatsky, Deputy Chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front. [158278]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: In a démarche delivered to the Belarusian authorities on 11 April, HMG together with EU partners, urged the authorities to review the cases of those imprisoned or fined, including Mr. Viachorka and Mr. Belyatsky, in connection with the 25 March demonstrations in Minsk. HMG will continue to work with EU partners and the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group to encourage an improvement in the human rights situation in Belarus.
  340W
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made concerning the abuse of legal process in the trial of(a) Mr. Ales Belyatsky, Head of the human rights centre Vyasna and Deputy Chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front and (b) Mr. Vincuk Viachorka, Chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front. [158279]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: An EU démarche was delivered on 11 April to First Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Martynov, raising concerns about the actions of the Belarusian authorities following demonstrations on 25 March, including the imprisonment of Mr. Viachorka and Mr. Belyatsky. The EU also called on the authorities to ensure that freedom of assembly of Belarusian citizens be fully guaranteed.

  UN Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom official delegates to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva; and if he will publish the United Kingdom voting record and list those resolutions sponsored by the United Kingdom. [158986]

  Mr. Battle
  The United Kingdom delegation to the UN Commission on Human Rights is headed by Mrs. Audrey Glover CMG. The delegation also includes representatives from the UK missions to the UN in Geneva and New York, as well as from the Human Rights Policy Department and Global Issues Research Group of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The UK contributes actively to initiatives put forward by the EU. At the 57th Session of CHR the EU introduced resolutions on Chechnya, Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Arab Territories, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Burma, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rights of the Child, and the Death Penalty.

  The 57th Session of the CHR will end on 27 April. The final UK voting record will not be available until after this date. As soon as it is available it will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what records are held by Her Majesty's Embassy of visits to Chile by Dr. Michael Denham, consultant geriatrician, since January 1998; and what facilities were offered to him. [158978]

  Mr. Battle
  There is no record of any visit to Chile by Dr. Michael Denham.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those visitors to Chile who have been visiting(a) the Pinochet Foundation and (b) General Pinochet who have been offered facilities at Her Majesty's Embassy in Santiago, Chile, since October 1998. [158975]

  Mr. Battle
  The British Embassy has not offered facilities to anyone visiting the Pinochet Foundation or General Pinochet since 1998.

  United States
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Administration and to Congress about the funding of Irish republican terrorist groups. [158775]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK and Irish Governments made a joint representation to the United States Government on 24 November 2000 requesting that the Real IRA be designated under the US Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This would make it illegal for anyone to raise funds for RIRA in the United States. The final decision on whether to designate is of course a matter for the US Government.

TREASURY

  Employment (Termination Payments)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of reducing the exemption of the first £30,000 of payments on the termination of employment to(a) £15,000, (b) £10,000 and (c) nil. [158777]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 570W.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 2001, to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer),Official Report, column 301W, on foot and mouth, (1) if he will list by valuation office area the number of appeals (a) made and (b) decided to date; [158677]

  (2) if he will instruct the Valuation Office Agency to determine appeals for a temporary reduction in rating assessments on the ground of the impact of foot and mouth within two months of such appeals being made. [158672]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) is continuing to receive appeals on a daily basis. It is not possible to give a final figure.

  The VOA will prioritise dealing with these applications. They are consulting, as a matter of urgency, members of the National Ratepayers Valuation Forum and representatives of business and professional bodies, local authorities and valuation tribunals on the approach and timetable for this work.

  Indebted Countries
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2001,Official Report, column 413W, on indebted countries, if he will update the figures and list the countries for whom debt has been written off by Britain, together with the amounts written off in each case. [158821]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As previously outlined, the UK has, and is, writing off debt through multilateral initiatives such as the HIPC initiative, and through additional bilateral initiatives.
  342W
  Under the HIPC initiative, the UK stands ready to write off all £1.9 billion still owed to the UK by the 41 countries potentially eligible. This is in addition to the £400 million of ECGD debt already written off under previous initiatives, and the £350 million of aid debt already written off for HIPCs. Interim relief is also being given to these countries on around £60 million of debt formerly held by CDC plc.

  Since 5 February, no further countries have reached Decision Point or Completion Point, and so the position remains unchanged. The World Bank and IMF produce regular updates of progress of countries towards Decision Point. The latest report, "HIPC Progress Report" (dated April 2001), is available on the World Bank website.

  As previously specified, the UK is holding all further payments from HIPC countries in trust, and as such is not benefiting financially from the debts of these countries.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Weston-Super-Mare, dated 6 February, concerning the class 4 national insurance contributions of sub-post masters. [159414]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no record of this letter being received. If the hon. Member would like to forward a copy it will be dealt with.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Scotland, (c) Glasgow and (d) Glasgow, Pollok, have claimed children's tax credit, indicating the percentage in each case of the numbers estimated as being eligible. [158817]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that there are 400,000 families eligible for CTC in Scotland. I regret that the other information that my hon. Friend has asked for is not available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Justice Review
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his plans are for the Criminal Justice Review. [159667]

  Dr. Reid
  Detailed preparation of the legislation and Implementation Plan for the Criminal Justice Review is well advanced. These documents will be published when the necessary remaining work has been completed.

SCOTLAND

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by her Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152653]
  343W
  Mrs. Liddell
  In the period 1 May 1997–30 June 1999 the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, an agency of the Scottish Office, spent £57,156 in respect of its agency logo and associated branding. Since 1 July 1999, the Scotland Office has spent £2,988 on departmental branding.

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted

  £

  Campaign

  TV

  Press

  Radio

  Other promotional

  1996–97

  Childrens Panels

  38,203

  24,518

  50.561

  —

  Crime Prevention

  1,096

  166,229

  131,472

  176,815

  Electoral Registration

  45,473

  17,795

  —

  —

  Fire Prevention

  281,916

  —

  38,534

  6,281

  Food Safety

  221,755

  391,811

  3,296

  13,072

  Historic Scotland

  207,000

  50,000

  90,000

  525,000

  Nursery Vouchers

  344,049

  218,605

  36,937

  148,859

  Organ Donors

  —

  42,256

  —

  —

  Right to Buy

  —

  81,428

  117,481

  28,736

  Road Safety

  222,806

  —

  66,643

  20,095

  Severe Weather

  100,775

  —

  —

  —

  1997–98

  Absent Voters

  —

  41,877

  —

  —

  Childrens Panels

  99,148

  70,189

  —

  5,940

  Continence Campaign

  —

  2,844

  —

  —

  Crime Prevention

  —

  —

  37,036

  15,634

  Electoral Registration

  —

  31,951

  37,960

  —

  Fire Prevention

  196,726

  60,287

  —

  66,742

  Food Safety

  —

  21,058

  —

  —

  Historic Scotland

  173,000

  80,000

  111,000

  530,500

  Learning Direct

  —

  —

  35,000

  —

  NHS Green Paper

  —

  76,440

  —

  3,249

  Organ Donors

  —

  41,274

  —

  —

  Police Recruitment

  —

  6,173

  —

  —

  Pre-School Vouchers

  137,470

  52–904

  2,668

  16,559

  Referendum

  287,706

  75,068

  18,467

  —

  Road Safety

  —

  —

  134,892

  247,675

  Severe Weather

  46,036

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  Childrens Panels

  71,393

  31,934

  —

  4,377

  Democratising Scotland

  —

  123,333

  94,751

  30,326

  Domestic Violence

  418,403

  122,973

  79,764

  10,105

  Electoral Registration

  —

  41,008

  —

  —

  Fire Prevention

  164,312

  44,544

  —

  12,844

  Food Safety

  —

  21,142

  —

  —

  Fostering

  —

  51,419

  45,936

  —

  Further Education

  —

  29,655

  39,984

  —

  Historic Scotland

  257,000

  50,000

  120,000

  678,000

  Local Government Commission

  —

  68,516

  —

  —

  NHS White Paper

  —

  76,734

  —

  —

  Nursing Recruitment

  169,670

  55,829

  32,831

  —

  Pharmacy Point of Dispensing

  —

  26,904

  26,338

  —

  Police Graduate Recruitment

  —

  9,423

  —

  —

  Road Safety

  469,554

  —

  —

  158,590

  Scottish Parliament

  1,093,679

  398,419

  62,606

  144,240

  Teacher Recruitment

  —

  4,182

  —

  —

  1999-June 2000

  Census

  —

  8,312

  1,681

  —

  Domestic Abuse

  97,257

  —

  —

  8,050

  European Elections

  —

  32,029

  —

  —

  Historic Scotland

  115,000

  —

  56.000

  106,000

  Road Safety

  79,728

  —

  —

  397

  Scotland's Parliament

  275,451

  255,766

  —

  11,114

  344W
  by (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [153411]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: Details of advertising and promotional campaigns conducted in the period 1996-June 1999 by the Scottish Office and its agencies are set out in the table. Information on departmental bodies is not held centrally. The Scotland Office conducted a campaign on Electoral Registration in February/March 2001: final cost details are not yet available.

WALES

  Prince's Trust
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the findings of the Prince's Trust report, "Mapping Disadvantage: Young People who need help in England and Wales"; and if he will make a statement. [156352]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Lead responsibility for promoting the welfare of children in Wales rests with the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly is committed to improving the health and well-being of children and to protecting them from abuse and neglect. The work of the Prince's Trust, in identifying areas in Wales where young people need the most help provides an additional and valuable source of information to assist the Assembly in its work.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with Ministers at the National Assembly for Wales on legislative initiatives designed to ensure a co-ordinated approach to policy in Wales relating to HIV and on the provision of sex education guidance for students. [155967]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with Assembly Secretaries about a range of issues affecting Wales.

  I understand that Jane Hutt, Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services has published a sexual health strategy and a communicable disease strategy and that the Assembly's policy on HIV is being kept under review.

  The Education Act 1996 requires all maintained secondary schools to make provision for sex education including HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. The National Assembly's guidance in this area is currently being updated.

  No new primary legislation requirement has been identified in relation to these matters.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria were used in determining which newspapers were used to publicise Government guidelines on access to the countryside; and if he will assess the benefits of using a wider range of newspapers for future advertising. [157713]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: I have been asked to reply, as my Department led in producing initial advertising and publicity aimed at the general public on this issue.

  The key requirement in the early stages of this important public awareness campaign was to ensure that the maximum number of potential visitors to the countryside had access to information on the foot and mouth situation as quickly as possible. Our media choices were carefully formulated to make sure that coverage across England and Wales was as thorough and even as
  346W
  possible, using national and regional newspapers and radio, and covering both urban areas of high population and rural areas with concentrations of farming activity.

  A media strategy always forms a central part of any communications campaign and the range of media to be used is carefully considered to ensure that maximum impact and awareness of campaign messages is combined with good value for money.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received on(a) the threat to rare breeds displaying no symptoms of foot and mouth disease from the extension of the cull to a three kilometre radius of an infected area and (b) the potential permanent loss of pedigree herds and flocks; and if he will make a statement; [155272]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the vaccination of rare breeds against foot and mouth disease. [157339]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received representations from the Rare Breeds Survival Trust and various individual breed societies and owners. The Ministry published proposals on measures to reduce the risks which make culling of rare breeds of sheep necessary on 19 April. Copies are on the Ministry's website. We have also supported the establishment of the Heritage Gene Bank, to preserve germ plasm from sheep breeds which are particularly threatened by foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries from which the UK imports(a) livestock and (b) meat whose livestock is known to be infected by foot and mouth disease. [154992]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: The UK imports livestock under EU or national rules only from countries or areas officially recognised as being free from foot and mouth disease.

  Community legislation recognises that disease is present in some countries, but has been contained in specific regions. The importation of meat is permitted from a limited number of countries where foot and mouth disease is present, but only where the disease is so contained. Imports of fresh meat are permitted only from those regions of the relevant countries that are not considered to pose a risk to human or animal health. Fully matured boneless beef, which does not pose an FMD risk may be imported from other regions subject to veterinary certification. Countries to which these controls currently apply are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Columbia and Uruguay.

  Community law allows member states to take action to prohibit imports from countries where a particular disease risk has been identified pending the amendment of Community laws to reflect the new disease situation. Because of their FMD situation prohibitions are currently in place on imports of meat of FMD susceptible species from South Africa, Swaziland and Argentina.

  All meat imported from third countries is subject to veterinary checks at Border Inspection Posts to ensure that proper import requirements are met.
  347W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will close the road past Wick Farm, Layer-de-la-Haye, near Colchester, to avoid further spread of foot and mouth disease. [153945]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: Veterinary advice is that the road does not need to be closed at this time.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will grant discretionary powers to highway authorities to close roads past livestock holdings where stock may be at risk of infection by foot and mouth disease and where alternative routes may be available. [153946]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: The Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 allows a Ministry or local authority inspector to prohibit the entry of any person onto any land or into any agricultural building that lies within an infected area. This power could be used to close roads. However, veterinary judgment has been that, except in very rare cases, to do so would be disproportionate to the risk involved.

  Nonetheless, to ensure that inspectors have sufficient powers to control the current outbreak, additional powers have been inserted in the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order 1983 by the Foot and Mouth Disease (Amendment) (England) (No 4) Order 2001 which would allow an inspector of the Ministry or a local authority (with prior written authority of the Minister) to close roads within a controlled area. At present, England and Wales and Scotland have been declared controlled areas.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2001,Official Report, column 126W, on foot and mouth disease, how many sheep were exported in the 118 consignments; and what information he has regarding the other sheep movements in February referred to in the statement by the Prime Minister of 28 March 2001, Official Report, column 954, with particular reference to the number of them that were the result of change of ownership other than through official livestock markets or abattoirs. [157511]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 April 2001, Official Report, column 588W.

  45,808 sheep were certified for export in the 118 consignments exported in February this year. Sheep movements are not centrally recorded.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he will provide a substantive reply to the Question tabled for answer on 23 March (Ref: 155117) regarding the effectiveness of homoeopathic borax in the prevention of foot and mouth disease; [157704]

  (2) what measures he has taken to assess the effectiveness of homeopathic borax in the prevention of foot and mouth disease, with particular reference to previous outbreaks; and if he will consider its use to prevent the spread of the disease. [157710]
  348W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 9 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 April 2001, Official Report, column 257W.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what role the Environment Agency played in contingency planning for the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement; [157997]

  (2) what guidance he has given the Environment Agency about its role in the contingency planning for a foot and mouth outbreak. [158000]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The Environment Agency has been consulted by MAFF on the environmental impact of methods of dealing with animal disease outbreaks. Prior to the foot and mouth outbreak, the Agency had agreed with MAFF a National Incident Response Plan to ensure that guidance on protection of the natural environment was timely and accurate. The Environment Agency deals with pollution risks to ground and surface waters and has expertise in air pollution modelling, but is not the competent authority in this latter environmental impact.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the changes in the average income of farmers(a) in the current year and (b) next year arising from the foot and mouth outbreak. [157009]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: It is premature at this stage to estimate the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on farm incomes.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the last outbreaks of foot and mouth were in each of the candidate countries for membership of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [155586]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The latest reported dates are as follows:

  Country

  Date of last reported FMD outbreak

  Bulgaria

  1993

  Cyprus

  1964

  Czech Republic

  1975

  Estonia

  1982

  Hungary

  1973

  Latvia

  1987

  Lithuania

  1987

  Malta

  1978

  Poland

  1971

  Romania

  1973

  Slovakia

  1973

  Slovenia1

  1978

  Turkey

  2001

  1 Last notified outbreak in that part of the former Yugoslavia

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of using the homeopathic remedy Borax 30 to combat the outbreak of foot and mouth, using information drawn from the experience of the 1967 outbreak. [155932]
  349W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 24 April 2001, Official Report, 257W.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) advice, (b) proposals and (c) recommendations he has received from the European Commission on measures to contain foot and mouth disease; and what response he has made. [156200]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: The Commission has been very supportive of the measures taken in the UK to control the outbreak. The Commission and members states have discussed the measures taken on a number of occasions and adopted a number of decisions relevant to the United Kingdom's position on the range of relevant issues.

  A mission from Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission visited the UK on 12 to 16 March 2001. We are currently awaiting the official report to the Standing Veterinary Committee.

  Woodland Management
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the Forestry Commission's support for the management of existing woodland. [159531]

  Mr. Morley
  Woodland makes an important contribution to the rural economy and is essential to the character of the English countryside. However, many of our woods are under-managed and are not delivering the potential range of benefits to their owners or to society as a whole. The Forestry Commission plays a key role in ensuring the sustainable management of our woodland.

  I have therefore asked the Commission to review its support for the sustainable management of existing woodland in accordance with the priorities of the Government's Forestry Strategy for England and in the light of the UK Forestry Standard.

  The review will help focus the Commission's work on finding ways to engage woodland owners effectively in implementing the England Forestry Strategy. This will help owners sustain their own plans while supporting the rural economy and improving the environment for the benefit of all. While the review will consider the effectiveness of existing Forestry Commission grant schemes, I am keen to see ideas emerging on the whole range of support measures through partnerships, advice, training and market development.

  The review will be managed by a steering group including woodland owners and managers and representatives from appropriate Government Departments and agencies, as well as from Wildlife and Countryside Link. Anthony Bosanquet, president of the CLA and a non-executive Forestry Commissioner, will chair the steering group. There will be widespread public consultation, including a series of regional seminars later this year.

  I have asked the Commission to submit its recommendations to me within 12 months.

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158129]

  Ms Quin
  This Government are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed to public bodies. In support of this, the Department has drawn up an action plan for increasing the numbers of public appointees from under-represented groups. The latest plans, together with the Government's overall plan, were published on 24 May 2000 in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 2000–03", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  No MAFF public appointments falling within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments have age limits applied. The Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal, dormant since 1994, also has no age limits.

  In addition, there are seven MAFF Agricultural Land Tribunals, which must abide by the statutory provisions set out in section 73 of the Agriculture Act 1947. The chairmen and deputy chairmen, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, must be banisters or solicitors of at least seven years standing. The statutory age limit is 72 for chairmen. Serving panel members retire at 70, but those appointed after 12 May 2000 must retire at 65. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor also appoints the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal chairman, who similarly must be a barrister or solicitor of at least seven years standing. The retirement age for the chairman and lay members of this tribunal is 70. The Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal has not been convened since 1984. The age limit for these posts is advertised. Appointments are initially for 12 months, with renewal thereafter at the Lord Chancellor's discretion.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 24 and 25 April; what the Government's voting record was at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [159573]

  Mr. Morley
  I represented the UK at the Fisheries Council on 25 April together with Ms Rhona Brankin, the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive.

  Commissioner Fischler made a first presentation of the Commission's Green Paper on the 2002 Review of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) underlining the need for significant revision of the CFP in particular to achieve a better balance between catching capacity and stock availability. The Council gave a general welcome to the Green Paper, with a number of member states endorsing the Commission's concern to increase stakeholder involvement in fisheries management and to strengthen the regional dimension. There will be a full discussion of the Green Paper at the June Council.

  Commissioner Fischler reported on the current state of play on the stock recovery plans for cod and hake. General support for recovery plans for close industry involvement in their development was expressed together

  351W
  with concerns about individual aspects of the plans. I made clear the need for effective and workable technical conservation measures in the North Sea to take account of the realities of the UK mixed fisheries.

  The Council adopted conclusions on the integration of environmental concerns into the CFP, which will contribute to the forthcoming report to the Gothenburg European Council on environmental integration, as required under the Cardiff Process. Commissioner Fischler presented the Commission report on a bio-diversity action plan for fisheries which will now be considered in detail and the Council adopted conclusions on a move towards multi-annual management strategies for setting Total Allowable Catches within a precautionary framework.

  We took note of the failure to conclude a further fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco and of the Commission's intention to bring forward measures for the necessary re-structuring of the Spanish and Portuguese fleets as a result of the lack of fishing opportunities in Moroccan waters. All member states confirmed that they would be ready to ratify the UN Agreement on straddling and migratory stocks by the end of this year. The Council agreed a common position on the criteria that the EU wants to see applied in the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) in the future allocation of catching opportunities. These take account both of the needs of EU fishermen and of developing countries.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to promote the policy of equal pay for equal work. [157921]

  Ms Jowell
  The pay gap between men and women's full-time hourly earnings has halved since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act. But women still earn only 82p for £1 a man earns. This is because of discrimination and the fact that most women are still concentrated in low paid, important but unskilled jobs.

  We are acting on a number of fronts to make equality law work better for women, and to tackle the culture of low expectation, low pay and no pay. Denise Kingsmill is leading the women's employment and pay review. We have appointed fair pay champions from business, public sector and trade unions. We have introduced the Castle Awards for exemplary employers. We are funding the EOC to develop pay reviews.

  The Government will set a lead and will be the first to audit equal pay of men and women.

  FE Colleges
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the contribution of colleges of further education to bridging the skills gap. [157922]

  Mr. Wicks
  Colleges of further education make a very substantial contribution to raising the country's skill levels. FE students achieve some 2.5 million qualifications each year including around a quarter of a352W
  million students achieving NVQ level 3 or equivalent. We are also establishing Centres of Vocational Excellence to enable colleges to be more sharply focused on meeting the skills employers need.

  Rural Sixth Forms
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the implications for small rural school sixth forms of his Department's new funding arrangements. [157923]

  Mr. Wicks
  This Government are committed to school sixth forms and there is nothing in the new arrangements that will undermine that. Every school sixth form, small or large, will be protected by our real terms funding guarantee.

  School Buildings and Repairs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been allocated for(a) new school building and (b) major building repairs and improvement in the north-west since May 1997. [157924]

  Jacqui Smith
  £839.6 million in total has been allocated for investment in school buildings in the north-west in the years since 1997. Of this, £199.5 million has been allocated through the New Deal for Schools programme, which is targeted at major repairs and improvements. Over the next three years we have so far allocated a further £501.3 million in funding for schools in the north-west, as part of the biggest school building and repair programme in over half a century.

  Education Funding (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding Government funding for education in Leicestershire. [157925]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on Government funding for education in Leicestershire from schools and parents. We are continuing to increase general funding to Leicestershire; in 2001–02 Leicestershire's SSA will increase by £14.7 million and its schools will receive an increase in direct grant of £4.2 million.

  New Deal for Young People
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal for Young People. [157926]

  Ms Jowell
  The New Deal is at the centre of this Government's drive to deliver employment opportunities for all. Almost 280,000 young people have found jobs through the New Deal, which has helped virtually to eradicate long-term youth unemployment. The New Deal has also won unprecedented support from employers, almost 85,000 of whom have signed up to the programme. The next phase of the New Deal will build on our success in equipping people with the skills and experience employers need, and intensify the help available to those at greatest disadvantage in the labour market.

  Employment (Over-50s)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will focus his employment policy priorities on the over-50s. [157927]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government's recent Green Paper, "Towards Full Employment", sets out our firm commitment to tackle the high levels of inactivity among people over 50, by increasing choice and opportunities for employment.

  In under a year, New Deal-50 plus has helped 30,000 people off benefits and back into work. In the coming year our range of New Deals, including New Deal 25-plus and New Deal for Disabled People, will help some 50,000 over 50s into employment.

  Sure Start
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the Sure Start programme; and if he will make a statement. [157928]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply. Although initial feedback is very positive, the Sure Start programme is still very new and it is too early to make a thorough assessment of its impact. A major evaluation of Sure Start began in January 2001. It will examine the impact of Sure Start on children, families and communities, both in the short, medium and long term by tracking a sample of 8,000 children and their families over time.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of Sure Start on rural deprivation. [157935]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply. Over time the national evaluation of Sure Start, which commenced at the beginning of 2001, will consider the impact of rural Sure Start programmes on child poverty and deprivation in these areas. Working with the Countryside Agency, Sure Start is developing ten rural pilot programmes, including one in Staffordshire, Moorlands, so that we may learn what works best for disadvantaged children in rural areas.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in how many local education authorities in England there is an integrated system for dealing with applications for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [157929]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department does not collect this information. The statutory Code of Practice on School Admissions recommends as good practice that admission authorities should operate co-ordinated admission arrangements. The code also encourages the setting-up of admission forums, which now operate in most areas, and which play a key role in bringing together various admission authorities to seek solutions to common problems and to improve the level of co-ordination in local admission arrangements.

  Education SSA
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the education standard spending assessment for(a) secondary and (b) primary school pupils. [157930]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Between 1997–98 and 2001–02 funding for primary schools has increased by £640 per pupil in real terms, and for secondary schools by £550. The ratio of secondary to primary funding per pupil has narrowed from 1.3 to 1 in 1997–98 to 1.2 to 1 in 2001–02.

  Since 1997, funding overall has increased by £540 per pupil in real terms. Under the last Government, it fell by £80 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98.

  School Catchment Areas
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the system for the determination of school catchment areas; and if he will make a statement. [157932]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Admission authorities, normally the local education authority for community and controlled schools, and the governing body for aided or foundation schools, are responsible for setting the admission arrangements for their schools, including determining and reviewing the boundaries for any school catchment areas. There is no requirement for admission authorities to use catchment areas as an admission criterion, although many choose to do so.

  Teacher Recruitment and Retention
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent steps he has taken to improve teacher recruitment and retention. [157933]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our recruitment and retention measures have already ensured that there are more teachers than for a decade and the number of trainee teachers has risen for the first time in eight years.

  The teachers' pay arrangements for 2001–02, and the £200 million teacher recruitment package announced by my right hon. Friend on 12 March will help build on this success. We are introducing a welcome back bonus for people returning to teaching; a teacher retention and recruitment fund to support schools in areas where there are difficulties; extension of £4,000 golden hellos for newly-qualified teachers of shortage subjects to English; funding for 570 more places in a full year on the graduate teacher programme; and 500 more places on refresher courses for those returning to teaching, which include training grants of up to £150 a week and help towards child care costs. My right hon. Friend has also published a Green Paper, "Schools: building on success", containing proposals that will further help recruit and retain teachers, including paying off, over time, the student loans of new teachers who commit themselves to a career in the maintained sector.

  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teaching vacancies in(a) schools and (b) colleges in England and Wales were filled during the financial year 1999–2000. [155624]
  355W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: The number of teachers recruited to a full-time post (new entrants and teachers moving to jobs from other schools/colleges) in England in financial years 1997–1998 and 1998–1999 (the latest year for which data are available), were as follows:

  1997–98

  1998–991

  Maintained schools sector

  52,100 (14.4%)

  50,200 (14.0%)

  FE colleges

  3,700 (7.5%)

  4.100 (9.1%)

  1 Provisional

  The figures in brackets are recruits as a percentage of the total number of teachers in post at the beginning of the financial year.

  There was a fall in the number of teachers leaving the maintained school sector in England, 27,570 (6.6 per cent.) in 1998–99 compared with 34,250 (8.2 per cent.) in 1997–98, following the 1997 reform of the Teachers Pension Scheme.

  The full-time equivalent (FTE) number of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) in the maintained schools sector in England at January 2001 was 410,280, an increase of 12,600 since January 1998:

  January

  FTE1

  1998

  397,700

  1999

  401,200

  2000

  404.600

  2001

  410,280

  1 Rounded

  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).

  Teacher information for Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Women's Employment and Pay Review
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the remit is of the Women's Employment and Pay Review. [157934]

  Ms Jowell
  The Women's Employment and Pay Review, led by Denise Kingsmill, Deputy Chair of the Competition Commission, will examine ways to increase diversity and flexibility of the labour market, for example through high value part-time and flexible working arrangements such as job shares, term-time contracts and contracts for 'job-pools'. It will look to produce a strategy for the promotion and implementation of voluntary pay reviews by all employers to ensure pay equality within their organisations. The review will advocate the benefits to business of voluntary pay audits and will work in collaboration with the EOC and employer and trade union representatives to help build support for a voluntary approach. It will identify further areas where understanding and awareness of existing equality law can be increased among employers and female employees.356W
  The review will draw on experiences of good practice both in the UK and internationally. Ministers across Government will be available to assist the review, but the work will be autonomous.

  We aim for the review to be completed by the end of October. The final report will include non-legislative and cost-effective proposals to improve women's employment prospects and participation in the labour market, taking account of the Government's Work-Life Balance Campaign. Denise Kingsmill will present her report to the conference on Women's Employment, Pay and Prospects in December.

  In-service Training Days
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of Baker days. [157936]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are committed to raising standards of education and supporting teachers to do this by providing the training and development they need. Teachers are currently entitled to five in-service training days, under the terms and conditions of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. In-service training days are an important tool for headteachers to help their staff keep their skills and knowledge up to date, and they are an integral part of our future CPD strategy.

  Employment Service
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he gives to the Employment Service on helping job seekers to find part-time work. [157937]

  Ms Jowell
  Through our range of New Deal programmes which are operated through the Employment Service we are providing tailored help to meet the variety of needs of those without work. The personal adviser approach is at the heart of all these programmes providing support to some of the most vulnerable people in the labour market.

  For some this will mean full-time work but for others, perhaps those with other responsibilities such as bringing up children, part-time work will be the better option. The advisers can offer advice and assistance, including help with calculating in-work benefits, child care arrangements and appropriate training to help them into work. And, from the end of this month, lone parents who take up part-time work of less than 16 hours will be able to get help with child care costs for their first year in work.

  Call Centres (Training)
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on training provision to provide skills for people planning to work in call centres. [157939]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are working with the Call Centre Association (CCA) and the Communication Workers Union to raise standards and increase training opportunities in the sector. We are also working closely with the CCA to identify current and future skill needs. Training provision for call centre staff, and for people planning to work in call centres, was part of the wider consultation into National Training Organisation arrangements for the
  357W
  telecommunications sector. The consultation ended on 30 March 2001 and we will make an announcement shortly.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policies are in place to ensure that young unemployed couples without children are actively seeking work while claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. [157940]

  Ms Jowell
  On 19 March this year, we introduced joint claims for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). Both members of young unemployed couples without children have to be available for work and to seek work actively, and each has to agree a Jobseeker's Agreement detailing what steps they will take in looking for work. Each member of the couple is required to attend the Jobcentre every fortnight to discuss their job search. Full payment of JSA is conditional on both carrying out their full responsibilities. Both will be helped by advisers to secure work and will be referred to programmes and New Deal assistance as appropriate.

  Ufi
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the development of Ufi. [157941]

  Mr. Wills
  Excellent progress is being made. Using the brand-name learndirect, Ufi Ltd. moved from its developmental phase to the national roll-out of its services and systems in October of last year.

  There are now over 900 learndirect centres operating nationally in a wide range of settings in both urban and rural communities. learndirect currently offers in excess of 430 course titles of which over 70 per cent. are on-line. The courses cover Ufi Ltd.'s initial priority areas including basic skills, information technology at all levels and business and management skills for small and medium-sized enterprises.

  The network of learning centres is underpinned by the learndirect National Information and Advice Service, comprising the learndirect telephone helpline (0800 100 900) and the learndirect website (www.learndirect.co.uk). Over 2.6 million callers to the helpline and over 1.7 million searchers of the website, have received advice and information on a whole range of over half a million learning opportunities.

  Training Facilities (Sheffield)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for new training facilities in Sheffield. [157942]

  Mr. Wicks
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the council's chief executive, to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library. However, Sheffield College will be in discussions with the LSC about the development of the new programme of Centres of Vocational Excellence, and new Technology Institutes. There has also been, as part of Excellence in Cities, the development of new City Learning Centres in the city.

  Lecturers' Pay
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the pay of further education and sixth form college lecturers. [157943]

  Mr. Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 28 March 2001,Official Report, columnS 689–90W.

  University Funding
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has had from vice-chancellors and principals on core levels of funding for universities. [157944]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives representations about higher education funding from time to time from vice-chancellors and principals. Most recently, he has received a copy of the report of the Universities UK Funding Options Review Group "New Directions for Higher Education Funding".

  The Government are increasing publicly planned funding to universities and higher education colleges in England by £1.7 billion over the six years to 2003–04: funding per full-time student will thereby increase in real terms in 2001–02 for the first time in over a decade.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools' latest annual report. [157945]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Mike Tomlinson's annual report for 1999–2000 shows that the quality of teaching has improved and the attainments of pupils at all levels have risen. We welcome the evidence of rising standards and congratulate teachers, pupils and schools on what they have achieved. Our policies are designed to build on the firm foundations which are now in place and to secure continuous improvement in teaching and learning in all types of school.

  Further Education (Standards)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to raise standards in further education. [157946]

  Mr. Wicks
  Standards in further education are already high. The most recent annual report summarising inspections showed that over 90 per cent. of teaching in further education was judged satisfactory.

  However, more needs to be done to bring standards in all colleges up to the level of the best. That is why the Government have put in place the Learning and Skills Council with a remit to secure better quantity and quality, introduced new inspection arrangements, and will increase the standards fund. These will all contribute to raising standards in further education.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people who have, to date, taken up ILA's, indicating the criteria used to determine suitability to open an ILA; and what the average amount invested for each individual is. [158846]

  Mr. Wicks
  Latest figures are that over 950,000 people have opened Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) in the UK. This figure will be updated shortly and I will write to the hon. Member with a revised figure when this is available. In England the main criterion for holding an ILA is that the individual is aged 19 or over. The figures available for ILAs in England show that each learning opportunity undertaken by account holders costs an average of £355. £178 of this is supported by funds available through the ILA initiative while the balance of £177 is shared between the individual and other sources of funding such as employers and trade unions.

  Student Transport
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what powers he has to overrule the policy of(a) a local authority and (b) a passenger transport executive relating to subsidy of public transport for students at independent schools of music on the basis of local education authority contribution to fees. [158953]

  Jacqui Smith
  A local education authority must by law provide free school transport for a day pupil attending an independent school if it is the nearest suitable school to the pupil's home, and that home is beyond the statutory walking distance. Local education authorities have discretion to provide free or subsidised school transport for pupils who do not satisfy those criteria; but they are under no obligation to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to intervene in a local education authority's discretionary policy in such cases, except where he is satisfied that the authority is acting unreasonably in the exercise of statutory powers or duties. He has no relevant powers in relation to passenger transport executives. For pupils aided under my Department's Music and Ballet Scheme at four independent specialist music schools in England, means-tested help is available through that scheme towards transport costs.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school children received free school transport in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000; and at what cost. [158771]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department does not collect from local education authorities a breakdown of numbers, or costs, relating specifically to children who receive free transport for the individual years requested. We estimate that approximately 800,000 pupils in England receive free transport to school every year. Total local education authority expenditure in England on home to school transport, including discretionary free and subsidised fares, in the relevant financial years was as follows.
  360W

  £ million

  1994–95

  319

  1995–96

  345

  1996–97

  382

  1997–98

  418

  1998–99

  444

  1999–20001

  485

  1 Provisional

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the objectives he has set for the Learning and Skills Council. [157931]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Learning and Skills Council was launched on 28 March and is now operational. It is the most significant and far-reaching reform ever enacted to post-16 learning. The council has a huge agenda, and its priorities include encouraging more young people to stay in learning; increasing demand for learning among adults; and improving the skills of the work force. We also expect the council to drive up standards in teaching and training, and build equality of opportunity into everything it does.

  School Improvement Awards
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those schools in East Surrey which were wrongly informed that they had won improvement awards; and if he will make a statement. [158378]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the letter issued on 30 March.

  Oxbridge Admissions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the information collected by(a) Oxford and (b) Cambridge universities in each of the last five years in respect of admissions, disaggregated by college. [157901]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 24 April 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 3 April 2001, Official Report, columns 123–24W.

  Fresh Start
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have been given a Fresh Start since 1997; and how many pupils obtained five GCSEs at grades A* to C for each of the schools for each year since 1997. [158847]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are committed to preventing schools from failing, and turning round those that do as quickly as possible. There are 353 schools on special measures, compared with 515 in 1998. Over 700 failing schools have been successfully turned round since 1997. The average turn-round time is currently 18 months, compared with 25 months in 1997. Over 100 schools in special measures have closed, and the pupils educated elsewhere.

  Where it proves impossible to turn a school round in a reasonable time, closure should be the preferred option. In exceptional circumstances, where closure is not

  361W
  feasible, the local education authority may consider a Fresh Start, closing the existing school and opening a new school on the same site. This is a difficult course, and should be reserved for the hardest cases. 25 schools have been "Fresh Started", of which 15 are secondary and 10 primary. All were causing concern, and the majority had been in special measures for over two years.

  GCSE/GNVQ Performance data for Fresh Start schools1

  Percentage

  Percentage of pupils achieving 5 GCSE/GNVQ A*-C in:

  School name

  Date of Fresh Start

  1997

  1998

  19992

  20002

  New

  Firfield Community School

  1 September 1998

  —

  —

  9

  4

  Formerly

  Blakelaw School

  9

  7

  —

  —

  New

  Fir Vale School

  1 September 1998

  —

  —

  11

  17

  Formerly

  Earl Marshal School

  11

  10

  —

  —

  New

  East Brighton College of Media Arts

  1 September 1999

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Formerly

  The Marina High School

  13

  13

  19

  —

  New

  Islington Arts and Media

  1 September 1999

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Formerly

  George Orwell School

  13

  10

  18

  —

  New

  Kingswood High School

  1 September 1999

  —

  —

  —

  3

  formerly

  Perronet Thompson School

  5

  6

  8

  —

  New

  Telegraph Hill

  1 September 1999

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Formerly

  Hatcham Wood School

  7

  14

  8

  —

  New

  Bishopsford Community School

  1 September 1999

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Formerly

  Watermeads High School

  22

  18

  13

  —

  New

  River Leen School

  1 September 1999

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Formerly

  Alderman Derbyshire School

  7

  5

  11

  —

  New

  The King's CE School

  1 September 1998

  —

  —

  36

  34

  Formerly

  Regis County School

  25

  29

  —

  —

  New

  New College

  1 September 1999

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Formerly

  New Parks Community College

  16

  14

  13

  —

  Mary Linwood School

  14

  6

  7

  —

  Wycliffe Community College

  11

  2

  14

  —

  John Ellis Community College

  17

  19

  12

  —

  Alderman Newton's School

  21

  21

  31

  —

  Mundella Community College

  23

  26

  23

  —

  New

  Park View Academy

  1 September 1999

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Formerly

  The Langham School

  7

  13

  13

  —

  New

  Kings High School

  1 September 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Formerly

  Kingsleigh Secondary School

  9

  17

  17

  10

  New

  Parkwood High School

  1 September 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Formerly

  The Herries School

  11

  13

  4

  14

  New

  Kings College

  1 September 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Formerly

  Kings Manor School

  18

  20

  13

  10

  New

  Corby Community College

  1 September 2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Formerly

  Queen Elizabeth School

  19

  19

  16

  8

  Beanfield Community College

  9

  21

  15

  8

  1 Data for Fresh Start Schools; data for predecessor establishments shown below each Fresh Start school.

  2 Performance Data for 1999 adjusted for exclusions; 2000 data adjusted for exclusions and refugees.

  Source:

  Performance tables.

  Departmental Report
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give a breakdown of the component sums under the heading, 'Developing in everyone a commitment to lifelong learning so as to
  362W
  Of the 15 secondary Fresh Start schools, four opened in September 2000 and have therefore not yet published GCSE results. Results for the other 11 schools are shown in the table. Two of these schools—Telegraph Hill School in Lewisham and Firfield Community School in Newcastle—are due to close in July 2001 and July 2002 respectively.

  enhance their lives, improve their employability in a changing labour market and create the skills that our economy and employers need', referred to in the accounts on page 146 of his Department's report 2001–02 to 2003–04 (Cm 5102). [159005]
  363W
  Mr. Wills
  A breakdown of the amounts under each of the headings on page 146 is given in Note 9 to the Main Estimate on page 160 of the Departmental Report (Cm 5102).

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average amount of hours of education that a permanently excluded child receives, by local education authority. [158845]

  Jacqui Smith
  In July 1999 we placed a responsibility on local education authorities to phase in full-time education for all permanently excluded pupils by September 2002, compared to the two to three hours all too typically offered in the past. Data from the 2000 Schools Census indicated that around a third of PRUs were providing full-time education and two thirds were offering 13 or more hours of education each week. All LEAs must offer full-time provision to all excluded pupils from September 2002. Since 1997 there has been an expansion of PRU provision with over 1,000 additional pupil places and nearly 600 more teaching and support staff.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have received a financial penalty for not meeting their exclusion reduction targets; and what the fine imposed in each instance was. [158843]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have not set school level exclusion targets and schools are not fined for excluding pupils.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many off-site pupil referral units have closed in each year since 1997. [158853]

  Jacqui Smith
  Schools Form 7 Census figures show the number of pupil referral units (PRUs) in each year since 1997 as:

  Number of PRUs

  Number of pupils1

  1997

  309

  11,933

  1998

  309

  11,906

  1999

  298

  12,465

  2000

  295

  13,065

  2001

  2308

  3—

  1 Including dually registered pupils

  2 Provisional

  1 Not yet available

  A number of PRUs have amalgamated to rationalise and improve the quality of provision following Ofsted concerns about standards in PRUs in 1995. Ofsted now reports that pupils in most PRUs are making satisfactory or better progress and teaching in 90 per cent. of units is at least satisfactory. Almost all PRUs now improve pupils' behaviour and attitudes to learning.

  A net total of 13 new PRUs have opened in the last year. Since 1997 the number of pupil places at PRUs has risen by over 1,000 and the number of teaching and support staff is up by nearly 600. The pupil:teacher ratio is 4.3 the same as in 1997. Local authorities were planning to spend 13 per cent. more on PRU provision in 2000–01 compared to the previous year. This reflects the tenfold increase in funding to tackle poor behaviour in schools
  364W
  and provide education outside school for those who are excluded, up from £17 million in 1996–97 to £174 million this year.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the criteria used to determine whether a decision by a headmaster to exclude a pupil should be overridden. [158852]

  Jacqui Smith
  Permanent exclusions must be reviewed by the governing body of a school through its discipline committee. Where a parent or pupil appeals against permanent exclusion, an independent appeal panel will consider the case.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's guidance to appeal panels is that they should decide whether the pupil did what they are accused of doing, and if so whether, considering all relevant factors, permanent exclusion is a reasonable response to that conduct. He has advised that reinstatement would not normally be appropriate where the circumstances involve:
  serious actual or threatened violence against another pupil or a member of staff; or
  sexual abuse; or
  presenting a significant risk to the health and safety of other pupils by selling illegal drugs; or
  persistent and malicious disruptive behaviour—including open defiance or refusal to conform with agreed school policies on for example, discipline or dress code.

  General Teaching Council
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the salary or expenses to be paid to GTC members including details of the sums paid. [158994]

  Jacqui Smith
  Two of the 64 General Teaching Council for England (GTC) members receive fees in respect of their duties as Chair and Vice-Chair. All Council members are entitled to receive expenses for travel, subsistence and dependent relative carer costs incurred as a result of their attendance for approved duties. The members' support scheme is in line with standard provisions payable to the Department's staff. I have asked the Chief Executive of the GTC to write to the hon. Lady with details of payments made since the GTC was established on 1 September 2000 and to provide a copy of the members support scheme. A copy of her response will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the arrangements which have been put in place to cover the absence of those teachers who are members of the GTC and who have taken time-off in order to fulfil their GTC commitments; and if he will indicate how the costs of such arrangements is met. [158996]

  Jacqui Smith
  The General Teaching Council for England (GTC) pays a standard rate to schools to facilitate the release of teachers for GTC work. The payment is made to allow schools to purchase supply cover for a teacher's absence on GTC business. The costs are met from the GTC's budget.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many meetings the GTC has held. [158995]
  365W
  Jacqui Smith
  The General Teaching Council for England (GTC) has held four full council meetings since 1 September 2000. I have asked the chief executive of the GTC to write to the hon. Member with details of the number of committee meetings it has held. A copy of her reply will be placed in the Library.

  GCSEs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the percentage of pupils who gained a GCSE grade A* to C in(a) physics, (b) chemistry, (c) biology and (d) ICT in each year since 1997. [158850]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of pupils aged 15 attempting the GCSE subjects and percentages gaining grades A* to C are as follows:

  Number attempting

  Thousand

  Physics

  Chemistry

  Biology

  ICT

  1996–97

  34.5

  35.2

  36.6

  62.7

  1997–98

  36.2

  36.5

  37.9

  68.4

  1998–99

  37.2

  37.6

  38.8

  76.3

  1999–2000

  37.5

  37.7

  39.4

  85.9

  Percentage gaining A* to C

  Physics

  Chemistry

  Biology

  ICT

  1996–97

  89

  89

  88

  55

  1997–98

  89

  90

  88

  57

  1998–99

  89

  90

  89

  55

  1999–2000

  90

  90

  89

  56

  Employment Green Paper
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of producing the Green paper 'Towards Full Employment in a Modern Society'; and how many copies have been produced. [159002]

  Ms Jowell
  The total cost of producing this Green Paper was £72,278 for 11,200 copies.

  Medical Students
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students have(a) applied and (b) been recruited to each medical school in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Scotland in the last five years, broken down by (1) gender, (2) ethnicity and (3) social class. [158439]

  Revenue Funding

  £

  Financial year

  Budget share

  1Standards Fund (devolved)

  School Standards Grant

  Other recurrent funding

  Total funding

  1997–98

  1,599,790

  14,279

  n/a

  3,900

  1,617,969

  1998–99

  1,670,530

  63,876

  n/a

  16,803

  1,751,209

  1999–2000

  2,485,490

  203,666

  n/a

  18,228

  2,707,384

  2000–01

  3,075,610

  352,830

  40,000

  42,670

  3,511,110

  2001–022

  2,937,380

  418,680

  70,000

  0

  3,426,060

  1 The Standards Funds figures include National Grid for Learning grants but exclude New Deal for Schools Devolved Formula capital, Seed Challenge capital and school security grant.

  2 The 2001–02 figures are provisional (except in the case of School Standards Grant).

  366W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The available data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) are shown in the table. UCAS do not release data for individual institutions at subject level. Information on the numbers of undergraduate entrants to medical schools by socio-economic group has been published at institution level for the last two years in the circular "Performance indicators in higher education in the UK (00/40 and 99/66)"1, copies of which are available from the Library.
  1 Produced by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

  Home domiciled applicants to full-time courses and sandwich courses in medicine institutions in the United Kingdom: year of entry 1996–2000

  Year of entry

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total applicants of which:

  12,025

  12,076

  11.807

  10,972

  10,226

  Gender

  Male

  5,950

  5,795

  5,637

  5,035

  4,455

  Female

  6,075

  6,281

  6,170

  5,937

  5,771

  Ethnic background

  White

  5,879

  5,969

  5,894

  5,405

  5,198

  Black Caribbean

  46

  43

  45

  34

  38

  Black African

  268

  241

  249

  250

  230

  Black Other

  30

  50

  58

  42

  26

  Indian

  1,086

  1,092

  1,064

  978

  926

  Pakistani

  649

  570

  572

  488

  452

  Bangladeshi

  181

  159

  162

  147

  119

  Chinese

  195

  189

  158

  165

  174

  Other Asian

  513

  457

  435

  445

  402

  Other

  317

  285

  279

  290

  278

  Not known

  2,861

  3,021

  2,891

  2,728

  2,383

  Social class

  Professional

  4,279

  4,084

  3,542

  3,126

  2,970

  Intermediate

  4,537

  4,370

  3,771

  3,284

  3,035

  Skilled Manual

  938

  882

  796

  724

  695

  Skilled non-Manual

  982

  920

  817

  793

  704

  Partly Skilled

  524

  527

  460

  399

  351

  Unskilled

  105

  107

  84

  71

  77

  Not known

  660

  1,186

  2,337

  2,575

  2,394

  Cockburn High School, Leeds
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much(a) revenue and (b) capital funding Cockburn High School, Leeds, has received since May 1997. [158339]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested (which has been provided by the local education authority) is as follows:
  367W
  Captial Funding

  The amounts shown in the table represent Standards Fund resources devolved to the school. There were no comparable allocations to the school prior to 2000–2001, other than £18,700 of devolved capital allocated by the LEA to the school in 1997–98.

  £

  Financial year

  Devolved formula

  Security Grant

  Seed Challenge

  Total funding

  2000–01

  36,130

  2,780

  20,000

  58,910

  2001–02

  31,940

  0

  0

  31,940

  In addition to the amounts shown, investment by the LEA in the school's buildings was £1.2 million and £1 million in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively.

  EU Schools Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those schools in the Lancashire Carrefour which participated in the European Union, Action Aimed at Young People, programme, identified in the Communities' publication, 'At the Very Heart of Europe'; if he will place in the Library a copy of the(a) polling questions and (b) Commission response; what part was played by his Department in the survey; and if he will make a statement. [156977]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Carrefour network provides information about the European Union to rural communities. In 1994 six Carrefours from five countries of the European Union, including the north-west England Carrefour, bid for and were successful in securing funding for a small project under the Youth Information Action Programme to research the provision of European Information in rural schools.

  The six Carrefours reported to the European Commission on the project in April 1997. As the project was commissioned and funded directly by the Commission, this Department had no involvement in the project and therefore does not have access to: information on the schools that participated; the polling questions; nor the project report. The Commission document "At the Very Heart of Europe" which reports on the work of the Rural Information and Promotion Carrefours and which refers to the project described above, is available from the European Commission.

  Departmental Policies (Plymouth Unitary Authority)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Plymouth, Sutton constituency, (b) Plymouth, Devonport constituency and (c) South-West Devon constituency, the effects on (i) Plymouth travel to work area and (ii) Plymouth Unitary Authority area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158029]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Plymouth, Sutton constituency, Plymouth, Devonport
  368W
  constituency, South-West Devon constituency and Plymouth and Devon LEA have been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average time taken from charge to the start of trials and what was the average number of hearings in an indictable-only case in(a) 2000 and (b) the first quarter of 2001. [158927]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information is not available in the exact form requested and is instead provided for defendants in indictable and triable either way cases that were committed for trial at the Crown court.

  In 2000 the average time taken from charge or laying of information to committal for trial was 87 days for defendants in magistrates' courts. The average time taken from committal for trial to first main hearing in the Crown court was 100 days in 2000. There were on average three adjournments per defendant per case in the magistrates' courts. There is no information held centrally on the number of adjournments in the Crown court.

  These figures provide only a broad indication of the total time taken from charge or laying of information to first main hearing for defendants who are tried in the Crown court, as the data from magistrates' courts and the Crown court will not relate to exactly the same defendants.

  Data for the first quarter of 2001 are not yet available.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she expects her Department to achieve its PSA target of reducing asylum appeal decision times to four months or less. [159033]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not have a PSA to reduce asylum appeals, but does have an asylum Service Delivery Agreement which makes up part of a wider PSA. The relevant target, which refers to the year 2002–03, is for 65 per cent. of all cases to be cleared through both tiers of the Immigration Appellate Authorities within four months.

  To acknowledge the importance of this target, and the significant progress already made, the Court Service has agreed a key performance indicator, in the same terms, for the 2001–02 year. Therefore we expect that level of performance over the year to be achieved by 31 March 2002. Accordingly, we expect the SDA target to be achieved by 31 March 2003.

  Defendants' Rights
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what objectives he(a) has set and (b) plans to set to meet his Department's PSA target to respect the rights of defendants and to treat them fairly. [159028]
  369W
  Mr. Lock
  The objective is to achieve the targets set out in the PSA by 31 March 2002. Targets set on 31 March 2001 are:To ensure that by 31 March 2002, 90 per cent. of people in police stations requesting the service of duty solicitor receive the service within 45 minutes; and
  That 98 per cent. of prisons have, in accordance with Prison Service standard audit requirements, sufficient staff to ensure that all prisoners receive information about public funding on reception and know who can assist them with applications for public funding.

  The Group will continue to add other measures to the basket and to develop meaningful targets.

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many reports Lord Birt has submitted to the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as an adviser on crime; and if she will make a statement; [158237]

  (2) on how many occasions, and on what dates, (a) the Lord Chancellor and (b) other Ministers in her Department have met Lord Birt in his capacity as an adviser on crime; and if she will make a statement about the contribution of Lord Birt to her Department's polices. [158239]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given her by the Prime Minister on 24 April 2001,Official Report, column 211W.

  Trials (Premature Abandonment)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the powers available to the courts to reclaim legal costs from publications which cause the premature abandonment of a trial. [158939]

  Mr. Lock
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken is for asylum cases, from the initial lodging of an appeal with the Immigration Appellate Authority to the authority's final decision; and if he will make a statement. [157174]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: For the 12 months ending 31 March 2001, data from the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) indicate that the average time taken from receipt of an asylum appeal in the IAA, to the appeal being decided through both tiers of the authority, was approximately 21 weeks.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers were removed in 2000–01. [159152]

  Mrs. Roche
  Provisional data indicate that the total for the number of failed asylum seekers removed in the financial year 2000–01 is 8,925, rounded to the nearest five.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a decision on the application from Mrs. Lori Graham Strother Dixon of the Leeds, Central constituency for leave to extend her stay in the UK and permit her to take employment as a teacher. [158943]

  Mrs. Roche
  An application for leave to remain was received on 8 March but was returned to Mrs. Dixon as not all the necessary information and documents had been enclosed with the application. There is no trace, as yet, of the application having been returned to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clandestine entrants into the United Kingdom were detected each month since 30 September 1999. [159122]

  Mrs. Roche
  Between 30 September 1999 and 31 March 2001 a total of 56,749 clandestines were detected. The table details these by month and category, i.e. On Entry or In Country:

  Clandestines detected:

  Date

  On entry

  In country

  September 1999

  382

  2,152

  October 1999

  215

  2,236

  November 1999

  180

  1,848

  December 1999

  57

  1,886

  January 2000

  210

  2,084

  February 2000

  144

  2,226

  March 2000

  195

  2,328

  April 2000

  169

  1,545

  May 2000

  204

  1,583

  June 2000

  185

  2,410

  July 2000

  86

  2,567

  August 2000

  105

  2,874

  September 2000

  88

  4,154

  October 2000

  194

  3,974

  November 2000

  99

  4,692

  December 2000

  56

  3,943

  January 2001

  82

  5,203

  February 2001

  98

  4,135

  March 2001

  78

  4,346

  It should be noted that while on-entry detections relate directly to the month in which they appear, in-country detections could relate to an individual who entered the United Kingdom sometime before detection.

  Departmental Policies (Nottingham, North)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Nottingham, North constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158855]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home
  371W
  Office Annual Report 2000–2001, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000' and 'Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000' can be found in the Library.
  The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested, although set out are examples relating to the Nottingham, North constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  Under round 1 of the RBI, Nottingham police, in partnership with Nottingham city council, were awarded £277,000 for a project in Top Valley and Bestwood Park. The main interventions include: repeat victims and vulnerable residents to receive burglar alarms; production of crime prevention leaflets; use of covert tracking devices and portable tracking unit; shared pathways and alleyways to be gated and increased lighting in the rear of houses and flats.

  Under round 2 of the initiative, Nottinghamshire police, in partnership with Community Safety and Youth Justice Partnership, were awarded over £2 million for the whole of Nottingham. The main intervention proposed is a strategic bid that aims to tackle burglary across the whole area. It focuses on 10 communities with sets of police beats that have similar characteristics and applies to them the Deep model (diversion, education, enforcement and prevention).

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Nottinghamshire police was awarded almost £1.2 million for a force wide project focusing on alcohol-related violence. The project strategy would be based on the SPEEDE response to tackling alcohol related violence. SPEEDE means support, prevention, education, enforcement, diversion and evaluation. £90,000 has also been awarded for a distraction burglary initiative covering eight Midlands police forces and their local authorities to develop, co-ordinate and manage a strategic plan to tackle burglary.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Nottingham city council was awarded approximately £227,000 under round 1 of the CCTV initiative for a scheme covering the residential areas of the Bulwell Hall Estate.

  Youth Offending

  Nottingham Youth Offending Team (YOT) covers the area of north Nottingham. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is currently funding a Bail Support Scheme and two Intervention Schemes in Nottingham. Nottingham City Remand Strategy aims to provide full and comprehensive pre-court assessments and support services for 10 to 17-year-olds. It also aims to provide an effective remand management strategy which meets the needs of young people and their families while ensuring the protection of the public. The YJB have awarded a grant of approximately £572,000 towards this project.
  372W
  Nottingham Community Justice Project is targeted at young people aged 10 to 17-years-old, initially focusing on the pre-court interventions, namely reprimands and final warning stages, then developing to involve pre-crime, at risk and post-court interventions. This project complements the work of Nottinghamshire police, who currently uses restorative conferencing at the final warning stage in some parts of the county. This scheme has been awarded a YJB grant of approximately £170,000. The YJB is contributing approximately £72,000 towards a project entitled INTERVENE. This is a scheme that works with Afro-Caribbean young people, both at risk or serving any youth offending order. It offers mentoring by Afro-Caribbean mentors, including peer mentors. In addition to one to one support, it also offers group monitoring and cultural and personal development workshops with links to local industry.

  Nottingham YOT was awarded a YJB grant of £145,000 in 1999–2000, of which £85,000 was for information technology, £10,000 for parenting, £30,000 for throughcare and £20,000 for minor equipment.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Nottingham, North to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (Dulwich and West Norwood)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158860]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 2000–01, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library.

  The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.
  373W
  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  Under round 1 of the RBI, £65,000 was awarded to the West Camberwell area to fund a lock-fitting service to target-harden burglary victims and vulnerable properties and the establishment of a detached youth project. The funding is also being used to improve quality of service to victims. £65,000 was also awarded to a project in Parkside Plus to correct physical vulnerability of vulnerable estates in the target area and develop new ways of working with offenders.

  Under round 2 of the initiative, the Metropolitan police in partnership with the London borough of Southwark were awarded £27,000 for a project covering Herne Hill and Croxted Road to tackle situational vulnerability and unmarked property.

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  The Metropolitan police, in partnership with the London boroughs of Islington, Camden and Southwark, have been awarded £570,000 for a project targeting autocrime through Operation Arrow, which is aimed at 'hotspots' in the three boroughs. The Metropolitan police have been awarded £688,000 for a project in Southwark to tackle hate crime. Methods used will include the creation of self-help groups defined by cultural, ethnic or lifestyle profile and supported by a dedicated co-ordinator.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  The Crystal Palace Partnership was awarded approximately £1.4 million for a scheme covering the London boroughs of Bromley, Croydon and Lambeth. The scheme will allow for 34 new cameras, designed to help reduce incidents of street crime, commercial robbery, violent offences, drugs offences, criminal damage and vehicle crime.

  Youth Offending

  Dulwich and West Norwood is served by Lambeth Youth Offending Team (YOT), Southwark YOT and Croydon YOT. All three YOTs have several intervention schemes and bail supervision schemes operating. These schemes receive funding towards these projects from the Youth Justice Board (YJB). The YOTs are multi-agency teams consisting of staff from: Social Services; Police; Probation; Department for Health and Department for Education and Employment as well as youth justice workers. The YOTs work in partnerships with other organisations to tackle problems of substance abuse, persistent offending, social exclusion and truancy and other problems that may cause young people to offend. Croydon YOT is currently running two intervention schemes in conjunction with the Prince's Trust. These projects aim to focus on mentoring and education and team-building, values and attitudes.

  Other projects being run include: Croydon '55' Drug Project, to provide specialist resources to young people whose offending is drug related; Croydon Community Partnership with and for Young People, the key objective of which is the diversion of young people from criminal activities by using a programme of social education;
  374W
  Restorative Justice Conferencing Project, the YOT works with Southwark Mediation Centre to provide direct and indirect victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing services; Positive Parenting and Behavioural Change Programme, this includes the assessment of cognitive abilities, direct work from the psychologist or Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN). There are bail support schemes being run which aim to provide support and supervision to young people on remand to avoid them having to be removed from home because of their offending and to reduce offending while on bail and reduce delays caused by non-appearance in court.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Dulwich and West Norwood to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 crime and disorder reduction partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (Bristol, South)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Bristol, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158856]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 2000–01, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime. cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Bristol, South constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  Under round 2 of the RBI, Avon and Somerset Constabulary in partnership with Bristol city council have been awarded £152,000 and £89,000 for projects in Knowle and Knowle West and Hartcliffe respectively. The main interventions proposed are target hardening; fencing of rear gardens and intervention work.
  375W
  Under round 3 of the initiative, Avon and Somerset Constabulary in partnership with all local authorities in the force area have been awarded approximately £650,000 for a project to test new forensic techniques.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Bristol city council has one bid for CCTV funding entitled "Safer Symes CCTV scheme" to a potential capital of £237,000 shortlisted for further consideration under round 2 of the CCTV initiative.

  Youth Offending

  The Bristol Youth Offending Team (YOT) during 2000–01 has worked with 2,200 young offenders and supervised 330 young people on community-based orders. The YOT has prepared more than 450 court reports and its appropriate adult volunteers have attended 350 interviews with young people at police stations. The YOT has established offender-victim mediation services and is providing intervention programmes to confront young offenders with the views of their victims. The YOT is also working to deliver the Government's pledge to halve the average time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders, from 142 to 71 days. The most recent figure for Bristol is 89 days.

  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is currently providing funding for one bail support and five intervention schemes through its development fund. The Prince's Trust operates an education project, FIVE, that is based in five cities in England and Wales working with young offenders and those at risk of offending, aged 14–17, through the provision of two Prince's Trust programmes. This has been awarded a YJB grant of £340,000. Fairbridge West run an education, training and employment project, Constructive Alternatives Through Life Skills for Life that works with persistent young offenders and those on final warning in trying to build personal, social and independence skills. This is receiving YJB funding of approximately £64,000. £128,000 is provided towards a project run by Include. This is an education, training and employment project called Post 16 Bridge Course, that works with 16 and 17-year-old persistent offenders who have poor educational achievements and limited employment prospects. Bristol YOT runs a parenting scheme. Bristol Parenting Support Project, that supports parents of young people who are offending so that they may help their child reduce offending. This project receives £60,000 of YJB funding. A grant of £82,000 has been awarded to the Children's Society for a prevention programme it operates called Right Track, which provides support for black children and young people aged 10–17 who are involved in the criminal justice system.

  The Bristol Remand and Intensive Support Project is being implemented by Bristol YOT and NACRO (National Association for Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders). £370,000 has been awarded to the project whose main objective is to reduce the incidence of custodial remands for 10 to 17-year-olds.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Bristol, South to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  376W
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Southwark, North and Bermondsey constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [158861]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 2000–01, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library.

  The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Southwark and Bermondsey, North constituency or the immediate locality:

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Under round 1 of the Targeted Policing Initiative the Metropolitan police in partnership with the London boroughs of Islington, Camden and Southwark were awarded £597,000 for a scheme covering these boroughs targeting auto crime through Operation Arrow, which is aimed at "hotspots" in the three boroughs.

  Under round 2 of the initiative the Metropolitan police were awarded £688,000 for a project covering Southwark to tackle hate crime. Methods used will include the creation of local self-help groups defined by cultural, ethnic or lifestyle profile and supported by a dedicated co-ordinator. The use of the rapid hate crime intervention officer, who would have access to a range of evidence collection methods, will be available.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  London borough of Southwark was awarded approximately £850,000 for two schemes submitted under round 1 of the CCTV initiative. Housing CCTV Control Centre and Mobile CCTV Scheme was awarded £750,000 to provide a new control centre with the capacity to manage 500 cameras. In addition, 50 new mobile cameras

  377W
  will be situated in crime "hotspots" across the borough. The scheme aims significantly to reduce overall crime, drug-related crime and burglary.

  The Car Park Vehicle Crime Prevention Scheme was awarded £100,000 for a 26 camera system, covering six car parks across the borough. The scheme aims to reduce all vehicle crime in the target area by 80 per cent. over three years.

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  The Metropolitan police in conjunction with the London borough of Southwark were awarded £65,000 under round 1 of the RBI, for a scheme in the West Camberwell area. Interventions include: establishment of a lock-fitting service to target burglary victims and vulnerable properties and establishment of a detached youth project. The quality of service to victims has been improved and a problem solving approach to burglary and improvements in relevant monitoring and communication systems is being developed. £65,000 was awarded to a scheme in the Parkside Plus area correcting physical vulnerability of vulnerable estates in the target area. It is also helping to develop new ways of working with offenders in the area.

  Under round 2 of the RBI, approximately £30,000 was awarded for a scheme in the Herne Hill and Croxted Road, West Dulwich areas. This project aimed to tackle situational vulnerability and unmarked property by using electronic alarms and property marking as well as increasing neighbourhood watch activity. £153,000 was awarded for a scheme in the North Southwark Corridor. The scheme aims to improve property marking and to work with offenders and work towards community building.

  Youth Offending

  North Southwark and Bermondsey is covered by Southwark Youth Offending Team (YOT). The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is contributing funding for five intervention schemes and one bail supervision scheme. Approximately £170,000 is being used to fund a Restorative Justice Conferencing Project. Southwark Mediation Centre works with the YOT to provide direct and indirect victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing services. Family Group Conferencing is offered to young people remanded into local authority accommodation, young people subject to throughcare and young people made the subject of Action Plan Orders.

  A Positive Parenting and Behavioural Change Programme includes the assessment of cognitive abilities. The YOT caseworkers provide consultation and life supervision via social skills training, anger management and cognitive behavioural interventions. The YJB are contributing £119,000 to this project. The YJB are also providing approximately £117,000 to an Appropriate Alternatives through Skills for Life (Cognitive Behaviour) programme. This project aims to provide integrated effective supervisory and mentoring support for 80 offenders.

  Approximately £69,000 is being provided to fund a Development Officer scheme. The Development Officer facilitates cross-borough communication and ensures congruence in development of services. A Parent Support Group has been established with a YJB contribution of approximately £43,000. This project offers support and information to parents and carers of young people who
  378W
  are behaving in an anti-social or criminal manner. The YOT has supervised 26 Parenting Orders since April 2000 and has received positive feedback from parents attending these groups either voluntarily or as a condition of an order. The YJB are also providing approximately £104,000 to a bail support scheme, being run in partnership with NACRO. This has reduced the rate of re-offending while on bail, while also reducing the numbers of young people remanded into local authority accommodation, or custody.

  A functional team within the YOT is dedicated to providing preventative and early intervention services. A multi-agency Risk Management Panel has been established, designed to manage the risks presented to the public by a small number of prolific offenders, through an intelligence led approach. This activity will be supported by the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Project to be launched in July 2001. The YOT has provided and/or co-ordinated a number of crime reduction initiatives including innovative work in schools, alongside police officers, in support of Operation Arrow; the Youth Inclusion Programme in the Elephant and Castle area and Midnight Basketball in partnership with the Youth Service and the National Playing Fields Association. The YOT provides groupwork programmes in schools for disaffected pupils at risk of exclusion and co-ordinates monthly truancy patrols, which have dealt successfully with over 200 truants in the past year.

  Easter and Summer Splash Schemes have been run in the following estates: Aylesbury Estate, Rockingham; Astley Cooper estates; Heygate Estate and Peckham. These schemes were set up across England and Wales to address offending by young people (especially 13 to 17-year-olds). The five areas traditionally associated with youth crime—burglary, motor crime, criminal damage, street robbery and juvenile nuisance all showed significant reductions compared with the corresponding period in the previous year. The combined drop for these crimes was 14 per cent.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Southwark, North and Bermondsey to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (Sandwell)
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Borough, the effects of his Department's policies and actions on the Metropolitan borough of Sandwell since 2 May 1997. [158330]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and
  379W
  communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 2000–01, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 Sept ember 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by basic command unit and crime and disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested, although set out are examples relating to the Metropolitan borough of Sandwell or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (RBI)

  Under Round 1 of the RBI, Metropolitan police in partnership with Sandwell Metropolitan borough council have been awarded £60,000 and £58,000 for projects in the Yew Tree and Smethwick areas of Sandwell respectively. The Yew Tree project aims to follow resource intensive police 'Crackdowns' with a structured multi-agency approach to target hardening and crime reduction methods ('Consolidation'). Crime prevention information packs will be given to every house on the target estate, together with Smartwater property coding for identified vulnerable premises. Persistent offenders will be evicted by the local authority from the estate and promotion of neighbourhood watch schemes will be encouraged and diversionary work with young people on the estate will be carried out. The Smethwick estate will undertake a crime reduction awareness programme encouraging households to receive property marking and a home security survey. An assessment of estate design and management will be carried out, leading to initiatives to design out crime and targeted police patrol strategy, concentrating on the most prolific offenders supported by strict pre-sentence bail enforcement. The probation service will work with ex-offenders to manufacture ornamental security grilles that can be used for target hardening as part of the community service order programme.

  Under round 3 of the RBI, Sandwell Metropolitan borough council was awarded approximately £371,000 in partnership with West Midland police and Sandwell local education authority for a project in North Sandwell. The proposed interventions include a programme for educating residents about preventing and tackling crime, a dedicated enforcement team to tackle the most prolific offenders, target hardening, neighbourhood wardens and designing out crime. West Midlands police in partnership with Sandwell Metropolitan borough council, Education and Life Long Learning and Sandwell Youth Offending Team have been awarded £120,000 to tackle prolific young offenders through an approach successfully used by the Brandon Centre in Camden, London

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  West Midlands police in partnership with Leicester University have received £98,000 for six Neighbourhood Watch schemes across the West Midlands. This is a project based on "community safety through
  380W
  communication". Six new Neighbourhood Watch schemes will be set up and provided with radio equipment for communicating among themselves and alerting the police. The University will then study the findings and issue a manual of best practice in how to use such radio links.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  The safer Sandwell Partnership, with West Midlands police, were awarded approximately £745,000 for four schemes under round two of the CCTV initiative. These schemes are in the following areas: Darley House Enhancement; Charlemont Farm Estate; St. Giles' and Moorland Court and Friar Park Estate.

  Youth Offending

  Sandwell Youth Offending Team (YOT) covers the area of Sandwell in the West Midlands. The YOT works in partnership with a local Nacro (National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders) project in the delivery of some of the Final Warning programmes. Crime Concern is running the Youth Inclusion Programme for the Greets Green neighbourhood in Sandwell. Community service is provided by the Probation Service. All service users are assessed using the Youth Justice Board (YJB) Asset assessment tool. In addition if there are concerns regarding a young person's mental health of substance use further specialist assessments are undertaken by the YOT community psychiatric nurse (CPN) or drug worker. The YOT is a multi-agency team consisting of members from: Social Service; Probation; Police; Education officers; Bail Support workers; Youth Justice workers; drug worker and a CPN.

  The YOT provides the following services: appropriate adults, bail support, court reports, programmes in support of final warnings, delivery of reparation orders, action plan orders, supervision orders, community rehabilitation orders, community punishment and rehabilitation orders and young offender through care. In support of final warnings the team have used offending behaviour group work in partnership with Nacro and are also using the "Prison No Way" and "Impact Roadshow" packages. Funding has been obtained to run a particular cognitive behavioural programme (the Brandon Centre Programme) for persistent young burglars. This programme has been rigorously evaluated and shown to reduce recidivism in the target group. The YJB are providing funding for one bail support scheme and two intervention schemes. The bail supervision and support scheme has been awarded a grant of approximately £74,000 over three years making a total project investment of £376,000. This project aims to ensure that young offenders will be assessed for and, if suitable, offered bail support as well as ensuring that those remanded to local authority care are appropriately placed and supported. It is attempting to reduce the number of young people in local authority and custodial remand placements by 50 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively.

  Re-Solve implements a prevention scheme, Sandwell-Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Initiative, which contributes to the reduction in offending behaviour by supporting local strategies aimed at addressing volatile substance abuse in Sandwell. The YJB are contributing approximately £10,500 towards this project. £256,000 is provided towards a joint local authority/WISH project. The WISH project focuses on children and young people who act in a sexually inappropriate way towards other people.
  381W
  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Metropolitan borough of Sandwell to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;1
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Augusto Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what criteria Dr. Michael Denham was selected to assess the capacity of Augusto Pinochet to stand trial; which other consultants were considered; and what objections were made to his appointment. [158976]

  Mr. Straw
  Dr. Denham was selected because he was a consultant physician in geriatric medicine, a medical specialism which was an essential component of the medical team for the purpose for which it was appointed, and because it was established that he was of outstanding national and international reputation in that specialism and had no inappropriate personal interest in the case. No objections were made to his appointment.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the records of medical examinations carried out on Augusto Pinochet prepared for his Department have been made available to(a) military and (b) legal authorities in Chile. [158977]

  Mr. Straw
  None of the records concerned were made available directly by me or on my behalf to the authorities in Chile, nor did we receive any request to that effect.

  Senator Pinochet was medically examined on 5 January 2000 for the purposes of the extradition proceedings then under way. The report was made available to Senator Pinochet and, later, to each of the four states—Spain, France, Belgium and Switzerland—that requested his extradition. Its contents subsequently received wide circulation in the world media. At the conclusion of the case I placed a copy of the report in the Library.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staffing level is of(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) support staff in the medical facility at HMP Holloway; and what the equivalent figures were for each of the last five years. [158982]

  Mr. Boateng
  As of 24 April 2001, there were(a) three doctors, (b) 43 nurses and (c) 26 support staff employed in Holloway's health care centre. On the same date last year, the equivalent figures were (a) four doctors, (b) 50 nurses and (c) 41 support staff.

  Information for previous years is not available. While there are staffing difficulties at Holloway, due to a number of factors, it should be noted that in November last year,
  382W
  the detoxification and post-detoxification treatment facilities were removed from the health care centre to separate units, reducing the number of health care centre beds from 92 to 27.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2001, how he proposes to measure his performance against the first and fourth of his targets in his Tackling Drugs strategy; what figures he is currently using for the numbers of young people using illegal drugs and the amount of drugs available on the streets; and how he has arrived at these estimates. [158935]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The target covers young people aged under 25 years, and is based on measuring the proportion of people who report use of Class A drugs (heroin, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, ecstasy, magic mushrooms, methadone and LSD). This is measured principally by the British Crime Survey (BCS) which is a nationally representative victimisation survey of households in England and Wales. The survey is administered annually (from 2000) using computer-assisted interviewing to a random sample of households, with a sample of 40,000 (from 2001 onwards), aged 16 and upwards.

  The results from the 1998 BCS form the baseline. The proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds reporting use of Class A drugs in the last year was 8.3 per cent. and in the last month was 3.4 per cent. The report on the drugs component of the 1998 BCS published in 1999 as Home Office Research Study 197, and is available in the Library.

  The baseline information from the BCS will also be supplemented by other available research, including the results of a school-based survey.

  The baseline in terms of drug availability will be based on a range of current and planned research (including intelligence estimates). The 1999–2000 baseline that determines the availability of drugs in the United Kingdom will be measured in a forthcoming Home Office research study. This study will estimate the size and extent of the United Kingdom drugs market for selected drugs including heroin, crack and cocaine. The Home Office will publish the findings of this research in the summer of 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's Drug Prevention Advisory Service Business Plan. [159023]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Drugs Prevention Advisory Service Business Plan is currently being prepared for publication and should be available by 2 May. We will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been(a) made, (b) breached and (c) revoked by the courts since the national roll-out of the order in October 2000. [158946]
  383W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Drug treatment and testing orders England and Wales

  1 October 2000–31 March 20011

  Number of orders

  Made

  1,250

  Breached

  2—

  Revoked by courts

  100

  1 Estimated from those returns received from the 42 areas Not

  2 Not available at present

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were dealt with for supply offences in respect of Class A drugs for the calendar years(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000 and for the financial years (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000 and (v) 2000–01. [159024]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Not all the information requested is available. The table gives the number of persons dealt with during the calendar years 1996 through 1999 for supply offences involving Class A drugs. Data for 2000 are not yet available. Information broken down by financial year can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Persons dealt with for supply offences involving Class A drugs, United Kingdom, 1996–99

  year

  Police (Great Britain)

  Customs (United Kingdom)

  Total

  1996

  5,332

  425

  5,757

  1997

  6,813

  510

  7,323

  1998

  7,866

  236

  8,102

  1999

  9,133

  384

  9,517

  Notes:

  1. Police data not available by drug type for Northern Ireland, 1996–99. 'Dealt with' means found guilty, cautioned, given a fiscal fine (Scotland only), or dealt with by compounding (Customs).

  2. 'Supply' offences have been taken to mean: unlawful production, possession with intent to supply unlawfully, unlawful supply, and unlawful import/export.

  Source:

  Drugs and Alcohol Research Unit, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the results

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force Vehicle crime (thefts of and from vehicles)

  Police force

  Offences year ending March 1999

  Offences year ending March 2000

  Change

  Percentage change

  Offences year ending September 2000

  Avon and Somerset

  37,823

  34,411

  -3,412

  -9

  32,669

  Bedfordshire

  12,752

  14,442

  1,690

  13

  13,897

  Cambridgeshire

  13,233

  12,443

  -790

  -6

  11,819

  Cheshire

  12,447

  12,176

  -271

  -2

  12,443

  Cleveland

  14,301

  13,030

  -1,271

  -9

  13,410

  Cumbria

  6,477

  5,414

  -1,063

  -16

  4,747

  Derbyshire

  20,273

  18,121

  -2,152

  -11

  16,119

  Devon and Cornwall

  22,270

  21,438

  -832

  -4

  21,207

  Dorset

  12,298

  11,427

  -871

  -7

  10,851

  Durham

  10,056

  9,126

  -930

  -9

  8,689

  Essex

  22,278

  20,429

  -1,849

  -8

  19,718

  Gloucestershire

  11,196

  10,244

  -952

  -9

  9,056

  Greater Manchester

  87,181

  87,932

  751

  1

  85,306

  Hampshire

  24,425

  23,363

  -1,062

  -4

  23,046

  Hertfordshire

  13,320

  12,578

  -742

  -6

  13,456

  384W
  of his Department's research into the results of the new England and Wales Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Initiative. [159022]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The first annual report of the new England and Wales Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring programme (NEW-ADAM) will be published in the summer of 2001. The results of previous NEW-ADAM studies are in the Library (Home Office Research Studies 183 and 205; published in 1998 and 2000).

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for(a) each police force area and (b) each basic command unit area, the number of recorded vehicle crimes in (i) the financial year 1998–99, (ii) the financial year 1999–2000 and (iii) the first nine months of the financial year 2000–01; what is the difference between the number of recorded vehicle crimes in 1999–2000 and in 1998–99; and what is the percentage change in the number of recorded vehicle crimes in 1999–2000 compared with 1998–99. [159047]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  For the purpose of this question, 'vehicle crime' is taken to mean theft of and from vehicles. The number of vehicle crimes in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 by police force area is given in the table, with the change and percentage change between the two years. The numbers of thefts of and from vehicles in basic command unit areas have been collected for the period from 1 April 1999. Details of these offences in 1999–2000 by basic command unit area are included in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12–00, 'Recorded Crime Statistics: England and Wales, April 1999 to March 2000', which is available in the Library.

  Details of the number of vehicle crimes for the first nine months of 2000–01 in police force areas are not yet available. The number of vehicle crimes by police force area in the year ending September 2000 is given in the table. Details of the number of thefts of and from vehicles in basic command units for the first nine months of 2000–01 are not available centrally. Figures for thefts of and from vehicles for basic command units for the year ended September 2000 are included in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1–01, 'Recorded Crime: England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000', which is available in the Library.
  385W

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force Vehicle crime (thefts of and from vehicles)

  Police force

  Offences year ending March 1999

  Offences year ending March 2000

  Change

  Percentage change

  Offences year ending September 2000

  Humberside

  25,404

  21,880

  -3,524

  -14

  20,479

  Kent

  29,294

  22,465

  -6,829

  -23

  23,043

  Lancashire

  23,478

  20,812

  -2,666

  -11

  19,541

  Leicestershire

  20,540

  18,940

  -1,600

  -8

  17,217

  Lincolnshire

  6,944

  6,871

  -73

  -1

  6,749

  London, City of

  502

  611

  109

  22

  639

  Merseyside

  30,337

  33,735

  3,398

  11

  32,801

  Metropolitan police

  163,020

  174,997

  11,977

  7

  171,789

  Norfolk

  10,834

  10,428

  -406

  -4

  10,099

  Northamptonshire

  14,065

  12,255

  -1,810

  -13

  11,685

  Northumbria

  29,416

  26,199

  -3,217

  -11

  24,427

  North Yorkshire

  9,641

  8,596

  -1,045

  -11

  8,180

  Nottinghamshire

  26,957

  24,716

  -2,241

  -8

  24,485

  South Yorkshire

  33,304

  29,523

  -3,781

  -11

  26,728

  Staffordshire

  19,464

  17,601

  -1,863

  -10

  16,638

  Suffolk

  6,446

  6,501

  55

  1

  6,192

  Surrey

  7,107

  7,455

  348

  5

  8,634

  Sussex

  25,334

  25,140

  -194

  -1

  24,074

  Thames Valley

  49,047

  50,464

  1,417

  3

  46,287

  Warwickshire

  8,961

  8,621

  -340

  -4

  7,516

  West Mercia

  16,174

  15,743

  -431

  -3

  14,527

  West Midlands

  74,142

  77,031

  2,889

  4

  72,136

  West Yorkshire

  64,071

  58,298

  -5,773

  -9

  59,449

  Wiltshire

  6,759

  6,598

  -161

  -2

  5,620

  Dyfed-Powys

  2,480

  2,203

  -277

  -11

  2,113

  Gwent

  9,746

  9,107

  -639

  -7

  8,157

  North Wales

  7,254

  7,501

  247

  3

  7,000

  South Wales

  36,681

  33,053

  -3,628

  -10

  27,687

  England and Wales

  1,077,732

  1,043,918

  -33,814

  -3

  1,000,325

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for(a) each police force area and (b) each basic command unit area the number of recorded domestic burglaries in (1) the financial years 1998–99, (2) the financial year 1999–2000 and (3) the first nine months of the financial year 2000–01; what is the difference between the number of recorded domestic burglaries in 1999–2000 and in 1998–99; and what is the percentage change in the number of recorded domestic burglaries in 1999–2000 compared with 1998–99. [159045]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of burglaries in a dwelling in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 by police force area is given in the table, with the change and percentage change between the two years. The number of burglaries in a dwelling in basic command unit areas has been collected for the period from 1 April 1999. Details of these offences in 1999–2000 by basic command unit area are included in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/00, "Recorded Crime Statistics: England and Wales, April 1999 to March 2000", which is available in the Library.

  Details of the number of burglaries in a dwelling for the first nine months of 2000–01 in police force areas are not yet available, and are not available centrally for basic command units. Figures for the year ended September 2000 are included in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/01, "Recorded Crime: England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000", which is available in the Library.
  386W

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force—Burglary in dwelling

  Police force

  Year ending March 1999

  Offences Year ending March 2000

  Change

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  14,584

  13,121

  -1,463

  -10

  Bedfordshire

  3,302

  3,709

  407

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  5,628

  5,259

  -369

  -7

  Cheshire

  5,925

  5,379

  -546

  -9

  Cleveland

  8,875

  7,717

  -1,158

  -13

  Cumbria

  2,298

  2,222

  -76

  -3

  Derbyshire

  6,603

  6,427

  -176

  -3

  Devon and Cornwall

  7,435

  7,416

  -19

  0

  Dorset

  3,828

  3,524

  -304

  -8

  Durham

  4,597

  4,044

  -553

  -12

  Essex

  6,331

  5,868

  -463

  -7

  Gloucestershire

  4,866

  4,160

  -706

  -15

  Greater Manchester

  45,739

  40,953

  -4,786

  -10

  Hampshire

  7,892

  7,372

  -520

  -7

  Hertfordshire

  3,589

  3,501

  -88

  -2

  Humberside

  13,496

  13,040

  -456

  -3

  Kent

  10,179

  8,177

  -2,002

  -20

  Lancashire

  12,189

  10,561

  -1,628

  -13

  Leicestershire

  8,937

  7,803

  -1,134

  -13

  Lincolnshire

  4,455

  4,626

  171

  4

  London, City of

  39

  27

  -12

  -31

  Merseyside

  14,177

  13,606

  -571

  -4

  Metropolitan police

  75,797

  79,504

  3,707

  5

  Norfolk

  3,711

  3,956

  245

  7

  Northamptonshire

  5,110

  4,907

  -203

  -4

  Northumbria

  15,334

  12,539

  -2,795

  -18

  North Yorkshire

  4,822

  4,343

  -479

  -10

  Nottinghamshire

  13,697

  12,612

  -1,085

  -8

  South Yorkshire

  18,405

  16,169

  -2,236

  -12

  Staffordshire

  9,974

  9,073

  -901

  -9

  Suffolk

  2,464

  2,332

  -132

  -5

  Surrey

  3,100

  2,903

  -197

  -6

  Sussex

  11,026

  9,596

  -1,430

  -13

  Thames Valley

  14,434

  15,498

  1,064

  7

  Warwickshire

  2,887

  3,189

  302

  10

  387W

  Notifiable offences recorded by the polite by police force—Burglary in dwelling

  Police force

  Year ending March 1999

  Offences Year ending March 2000

  Change

  Percentage change

  West Mercia

  5,867

  5,667

  -200

  -3

  West Midlands

  37,323

  35,583

  -1,740

  -5

  West Yorkshire

  35,952

  29,623

  -6,329

  -18

  Wiltshire

  2,447

  2,149

  -298

  -12

  Dyfed-Powys

  973

  696

  -277

  -28

  Gwent

  3,377

  3,148

  -229

  -7

  North Wales

  2,449

  2,219

  -230

  -9

  South Wales

  9,239

  8,383

  -856

  -9

  England and Wales

  473,352

  442,601

  -30,751

  -7

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for the Home Department when he intends to publish the recorded crime statistics for the 12 months ending 31 March. [159012]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The recorded crime bulletin for the year ending March 2001 is due to be published in the week beginning 16 July 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police force areas and basic command units that make up the principal cities which are the subject of his Department's target for reducing recorded robbery. [159013]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have set the following five forces a target of a 14 per cent. reduction of robbery by March 2005: Greater Manchester police, Merseyside police, Metropolitan police, West Midlands police and West Yorkshire police.

  The basic command units which make up these police force areas are:
  Greater Manchester Police
  Bolton, Bury, North Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, South Manchester, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan.
  Merseyside Police
  Central Wirral, City and Kirkdale, Knowsley, North Sefton, North Wirral, South Liverpool, South Sefton, St Helens, Walton and Croxteth, Wavertree and Riverside and West Derby and Tuebrook.
  Metropolitan Police
  Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Camden, City of Westminster, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Heathrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston-upon-Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Newham, Redbridge, Richmond-upon-Thames, Southwark, Sutton, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Wandsworth.
  West Midlands Police
  D1—Erdington/Aston/Nechells/Saltley/Ward End, D2—Sutton Coldfield/Castle Vale /Kingstanding, D3—Stechford/Shard End/ Bordesley Green/Bromford/Sheldon, E1—Bournville/Bartley Green/Longbridge/Selly Oak/Frankley/Northfield, E2—Kings Heath/Billesley/Kings Norton, E3—Acocks Green/Sparkhill/ Sparkbrook/Edgbaston /Balsall Heath/Selly Park/Moseley, F1—Birmingham City Centre/Digbeth, F2—Soho/ Winson Green/ Harbourne/Ladywood/Quinton, F3—Soho/Handsworth/Sandwell/ Perry Barr/Aston (part), G1—Wolverhampton Town Centre/ Wolverhampton West/ Whitmoreanes/Tettenhall/Penn, G2— Wednesfield/Bilsto H1—Walsall North and South/Walsall Town Centre/Aldridge, H2W—Willenhall/Blexwich/Brownhills/ Darlaston, J1—Brierley Hill/Dudley/Sedgeley/Gornal, J2—Halesowen/Stourbridge/ Lye/Cradley/Kingswinford, K1—West Bromwich/Wednesbury/Tipton/Great Barr, K2—Smethwick/
  388W
  Oldbury/Old Hill/Langley/Warley, L1—Solihull/Chelmsley Wood/Shirley, M1—Coundon/Hillsfields/Tile Hill/Coventry City Centre, M2—Fletchamstead /Stivichall/Willenham—Coventry/ Stoke and M3—Radford/Foleshill/Bell Green/ Wyken.
  West Yorkshire Police
  Bradford Central, Calder Valley, Chapeltown, Dewsbury, Eccleshill, Halifax, Holbeck, Huddersfield, Keighley, Killingbeck, Millgarth, Odsal, Pontefract, Pudsey, Toller Lane, Wakefield and Weetwood.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) for each police force area and (b) each basic command unit area the number of recorded robberies in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) the first nine months of the financial year 2000–01; what is the difference between the number of recorded robberies in the first nine months of 2000–01 compared with the first nine months of 1999–2000; and what is the percentage difference between the number of recorded robberies in the first nine months of 2000–01 compared with the first nine months of 1999–2000. [159044]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of robberies in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 by police force area are given in the table.

  The number of robberies in basic command unit areas has been collected for the period from 1 April 1999. Details of the number of robberies in 1999–2000 by basic command unit areas are included in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12–00, 'Recorded Crime Statistics: England and Wales, April 1999 to March 2000', which is available in the Library.

  Details of the number of robberies for the first nine months of 2000–01 in police force areas are not yet available, and are not available centrally for basic command units. Figures for the year ended September 2000 are included in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1–01, 'Recorded Crime: England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000', which is available in the Library.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force—Robbery

  Police force

  Offences year ending year ending March 1999

  Offences year ending March 2000

  Change

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  1,831

  2,381

  550

  30

  Bedfordshire

  530

  615

  85

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  437

  548

  111

  25

  Cheshire

  397

  466

  69

  17

  Cleveland

  908

  839

  -69

  -8

  Cumbria

  119

  90

  -29

  -24

  Derbyshire

  504

  584

  80

  16

  Devon and Cornwall

  462

  487

  25

  5

  Dorset

  205

  241

  36

  18

  Durham

  172

  236

  64

  37

  Essex

  523

  626

  103

  20

  Gloucestershire

  273

  291

  18

  7

  Greater Manchester

  7,632

  8,634

  1,002

  13

  Hampshire

  588

  732

  144

  24

  Hertfordshire

  250

  420

  170

  68

  Humberside

  839

  950

  111

  13

  Kent

  712

  827

  115

  16

  Lancashire

  982

  1,058

  76

  8

  Leicestershire

  967

  1,023

  56

  6

  Lincolnshire

  149

  178

  29

  19

  London, City of

  29

  49

  20

  69

  Merseyside

  2,484

  2,663

  179

  7

  Metropolitan Police

  26,330

  36,317

  9,987

  38

  Norfolk

  220

  297

  77

  35

  Northamptonshire

  443

  481

  38

  9

  Northumbria

  1,347

  1,389

  42

  3

  North Yorkshire

  170

  212

  42

  25

  Nottinghamshire

  1,312

  1,768

  456

  35

  389W

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force—Robbery

  Police force

  Offences year ending March 1999

  Offences year ending March 2000

  Change

  Percentage change

  South Yorkshire

  979

  1,122

  143

  15

  Staffordshire

  509

  697

  188

  37

  Suffolk

  140

  223

  83

  59

  Surrey

  171

  224

  53

  31

  Sussex

  939

  1,020

  81

  9

  Thames Valley

  1,327

  1,659

  332

  25

  Warwickshire

  170

  224

  54

  32

  West Mercia

  351

  359

  8

  2

  West Midlands

  7,315

  10,092

  2,777

  38

  West Yorkshire

  3,072

  3,088

  16

  1

  Wiltshire

  195

  258

  63

  32

  Dyfed-Powys

  42

  28

  -14

  -33

  Gwent

  173

  216

  43

  25

  North Wales

  127

  146

  19

  15

  South Wales

  511

  519

  8

  2

  England and Wales

  66,836

  84,277

  17,441

  26

  Sentence Reports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ratio of specific sentence reports to the total of pre-sentence reports plus specific sentence reports in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000 and (c) 2000–2001. [158929]

  Crime Reduction Directors

  Name

  Experience and qualifications

  David A'Herne—Wales

  Served with the South Wales police for 31 years Masters degree in criminology specialised in community policing Member of the British Society of Criminology

  Margaret Geary—West Midlands

  Professional probation officer and social worker Experience with Warwickshire social services and West Midlands probation service Formerly Home Office Government Office co-ordinator for West Midlands

  Greg Dyche—Yorkshire and the Humber

  Civil servant with experience across a number of Government Departments Six years in Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber Law graduate

  Henry Tam—East of England

  Former Assistant Chief Executive of St. Edmundsbury Borough Council in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk Doctorate in Moral and Criminal Responsibility Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing

  Alan Brown—North East

  Former Deputy Chief Constable Northumbria police with 33 years service in total Awarded Queen's Police Medal in 1996 Member of the Institute of Personnel Development

  Stephen Brookes—East Midlands

  24 years experience as a service Police Officer with Hampshire, Avon and Somerset and Leicestershire police Led Her majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary thematic inspection 'Calling Time on Crime'

  David Smith—North West

  35 years in the Police Service, including nine years as Assistant Chief Constable in both Northumbria and Lancashire police First class honours degree in Social Studies

  Paul Rowlandson—South West

  34 years service with Merseyside police, including three years as a staff officer with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary

  Hugh Marriage—South East

  Member of Home Office staff for over 35 years Previously head of the Criminal Policy Strategy Unit

  Ellie Roy—London

  21 years with the probation service including four as Chief Probation Officer in Northamptonshire

  390W
  Mr. Boateng
  Specific sentence reports became used nationally only at the end of 1999. Figures are available only for the first three quarters of 2000. The proportion of pre-sentence reports that were specific sentence reports was:1st Quarter—5 per cent.
  2nd Quarter—7 per cent.
  3rd Quarter—8 per cent.

  The figures are estimates as the definitions varied slightly in different probation areas.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of pre-sentence reports were delivered within 15 days during the year 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [158930]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation indicates that in the first six months of 2000–01, 71 per cent. of pre-sentence reports were prepared within 15 days. This figure is provisional as not all data are yet available. Information is not yet available for the second six months.

  Crime Reduction Directors
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Crime Reduction Directors in England and Wales, indicating their relevant(a) experience and (b) qualifications. [159036]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The details requested are given in the table.
  391W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to public funds of the Crime Reduction Directors in England and Wales, their offices and support staff. [159037]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The 10 Crime Reduction Directors took up post between June and October last year. The total cost of the directors, their support staff and associated running costs was £2,043,000 in 2000–01. Crime reduction support staff were employed prior to the appointment of the directors, principally to manage the crime reduction programme funding, and their total cost in 1999–2000 was £529,000.

  Football-related Offences
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many football-related offences had been committed by the end of March; and what his Department's baseline figure was. [159035]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The data are not available in the form requested. But as of 20 April 2001, there have been 3,026 arrests in connection with football-related offences at Premier League and Nationwide League grounds this season. This is comparable with last season's figure of 3,137. Football-related arrests continue to be a small proportion in relation to total attendances, which exceed 25 million per season.

  Disorder (Reduction)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his baseline for his Department's PSA target to reduce the level of disorder. [159020]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Work is currently in progress to develop an accurate and reliable indicator of the level of disorder. It is expected that the indicator will be based on information gathered from the British Crime Survey. As the relevant questions have been included in the survey only since the start of this year, it is not possible at present to produce a baseline figure. We expect to be able to determine a baseline in the autumn.

  Sexual Offenders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) accredited offender behaviour programmes and (b) accredited offender behaviour programmes for sexual offenders were completed in the financial year 2000–01. [159030]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total number of accredited offending behaviour programmes completed in Prison Service establishments in 2000–01 was 6,041. Of these, 848 were sex offender treatment programmes. These data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Glidewell Justice Units
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Glidewell co-located criminal justice units; and if he will make a statement on the targets and performance indicators which he has set for those units. [158952]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  20 co-located Glidewell Criminal Justice Units had been established in police or Crown Prosecution Service premises in 13 criminal justice areas 392W
  by 31 March 2001. A further 56 units are planned for establishment by 31 March 2002. The initial sites are at: Bristol, Crewe, Middlesbrough, Durham, Colchester, Harlow, Southend, Laindon, Basingstoke, Newport (Isle of Wight), Folkestone, Maidstone, Preston, Lancaster, Skegness, Caernarfon, Barnsley, Brierley Hill, Halesowen and Halifax.

  Criminal Justice Units are a practical example of independent organisations working together to secure reductions in delay and duplication by sharing resources and developing a common administration. Separate targets or performance indicators have not been set for these jointly staffed units. Police and Crown Prosecution Service staff employed within these units will continue to work towards discrete departmental targets that have been set by their respective and independent organisations.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his baseline for his Department's PSA target of reducing by 5 per cent. the percentage of young people who offend. [159018]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office has a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target of reducing the rate of reconvictions of all young offenders by 5 per cent. by 2004 compared to the predicted rate.

  The baseline is derived from Police National Computer data on offenders aged 10 to 17 cautioned or convicted in the first half of 1997. The one-year reconviction rate for this period is 33.7 per cent. The target requires that the number of reconvictions be reduced by 5 per cent. by 2004, compared to a predicted rate which incorporates the baseline data as well as other factors. If there were no other factors, the target would require a rate of 32 per cent.

  The predicted rate will, however, make allowance for the following:

  (a) Any changes in the age, sex, offence and previous criminal history profile of sentenced or cautioned offenders. These factors are known to be associated with the risk of reoffending;

  (b) External factors associated with other PSA targets, which impact on reconviction, but not on the underlying rate of reoffending, where methodology allows. This is likely to focus on reduced delays in achieving a conviction (PSA target 8) and the increased proportion of recorded crimes where the offender is brought to justice (PSA target 6);

  (c) Subsequent convictions for offences committed prior to the offender commencing the period under study.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases involving persistent young offenders have come before the courts in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001 to date; and how many have come before the courts in the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01. [158938]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not held centrally in the exact form requested. The following figures relate to persistent young offenders, as defined for the purpose of measuring and monitoring the Government's pledge to halve the time between arrest and sentence from 142 days in 1996. The table shows the number of persistent young offenders who were sentenced (rather than attended a
  393W
  court) in England and Wales during the years requested. A figure for 2000–01 cannot be given, as data for the first quarter of 2001 are not yet available.

  Year

  Number of cases

  1997

  16,010

  1998

  18,605

  1999

  21,151

  2000

  23,131

  1997–98

  16,840

  1998–99

  19,131

  1999–2000

  22,126

  2000–01

  n/a

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases a final warning has been given to a young offender; in what proportion of such cases the final warning has been followed by an intervention; and if he will make a statement. [159007]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, reprimands and final warnings replaced cautions for young offenders (those aged 10–17). They were introduced in seven pilot areas from the end of September 1998 until 1 June 2000, when both reprimands and final warnings became available nationwide.

  The table shows, for each quarter, the number of final warnings issued. Those recorded during the final quarter of 1998 were collected as part of the pilot. Data for 1999 and 2000 are as recorded on the Home Office Court Proceedings and Cautions Database. Data for 2000 are provisional, that for the last quarter not yet available.

  Number of persons aged 10–17 given final warnings in England and Wales

  Number

  1998

  4th quarter

  1580

  1999

  1st quarter

  1450

  2nd quarter

  1640

  3rd quarter

  1490

  4th quarter

  1470

  2000

  1st quarter

  1970

  2nd quarter

  22,760

  3rd quarter

  26,620

  Total

  12,970

  1 Seven pilots areas only

  2 Nationwide from 1 June

  Data received from Youth Offending Teams show that 55 per cent. of final warnings were followed by an intervention during the period June 2000 to December 2000 (48 per cent. in the quarter June to September and 63 per cent. in the quarter October to December).

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force area, the average number of days from arrest to sentence in cases involving persistent young offenders at the most recent date for which figures are available. [158936]
  394W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest available figures for the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders for each police force area are for the year 2000. These figures were published in the Lord Chancellor's Department Statistical Bulletin 3/2001 on 23 March 2001. A copy of this bulletin will be placed in the Library.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what targets and performance indicators he has set to meet his Department's objective of tackling attrition in the criminal justice system; [158951]

  (2) what is his baseline and what are his targets and performance indicators to meet his Department's objective of achieving a reasonable reduction in attrition. [158937]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Public Service Agreement for the whole criminal justice system, agreed in last year's Spending Review, included a target of increasing the number and proportion of recorded crimes for which an offender is brought to justice. ("Brought to justice" means that an offender has been cautioned, has an offence taken into consideration by the courts in passing sentence, or is convicted of an offence). In "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", we indicated that, specifically, there will be a criminal justice system-wide target to increase, by 2004, the number of recorded crimes ending in an offender being brought to justice by 100,000. In 1999–2000, 1,270,000 offences were brought to justice, which represented 24 per cent. of the 5,301,000 crimes recorded in that year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set to improve the satisfaction of(a) victims and (b) witnesses with the criminal justice system. [159025]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The current target for both victim and witness satisfaction is a five percentage point improvement by March 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish his Department's research findings on public confidence in the criminal justice system. [159026]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The findings of the 2000 British Crime Survey on confidence in the criminal justice system were published on 31 January 2001. A copy of Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No. 137: Confidence in the Criminal Justice System: Findings from the 2000 British Crime Survey was deposited in the Library following publication.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the report prepared for his Department by Professor Michael Levi on laws to combat organised crime. [158950]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have undertaken in "Criminal Justice—The Way Ahead" (Cm 5074) to consider whether there is a need to introduce a new offence to cover organised criminal conspiracy. Professor Michael Levi was commissioned by the Home Office last year to study the experience of
  395W
  countries that had already introduced such offences. A summary of the report is being prepared by officials and will be published later this year. Copies of this summary will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his(a) baseline and (b) target for the disruption of organised criminal enterprises. [159029]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office Public Service Agreement sets a target of disrupting 10 per cent. more organised criminal enterprises by 2004. The baseline figure will be the number of such groups disrupted during 2000–01, which is currently being determined.

  Prisoner Activity
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of hours of purposeful activity per prisoner per week(a) in 2000–01 and (b) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [158933]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average number of purposeful activity hours per prisoner per week in 2000–01 was 23.8 hours. The average rate during March 2001 was 24.5 hours. The data for March are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  "Living without Fear"
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects currently being funded by his Department in order to implement the action points of "Living without Fear", indicating the objective, expected duration and cost to public funds of each such project. [159014]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government's 1999 policy and awareness raising publication, "Living without Fear", set out information on domestic violence and other aspects of violence against women, with examples of the innovative interventions then under way to address them. It was designed as a basis for the future development of policy and described the measures the Government had themselves already undertaken, those they had in hand and those they were committed to taking. A number of these measures were to ensure that relevant issues were properly taken into account in general policy rather than being specifically and exclusively directed at violence against women. Current projects that are so directed are those within the Violence against Women Initiative of the Crime Reduction Programme, and information on them is given in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Criminal Justice Act (Costs)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish a report under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 on costs. [158931]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Data are currently being collected and a report prepared on costs. Subject to trilateral agreement between the criminal justice agencies, we hope to publish the report before the end of the year.

  Statutory Time Limits (Pilots)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of statutory time limits pilots. [158928]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Piloting of statutory time limits began on 1 November 1999 in youth courts in six areas. The pilots are being evaluated by independent researchers from the University of Sheffield. The evaluation is in progress and is expected to be completed at the end of the year.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the figures(a) nationally and (b) for each probation area for the number and proportion of cases under supervision by the Probation Service where breach action was taken in accordance with national standards in 2000–01. [158934]

  Mr. Boateng
  The figures for compliance with the national standard on breach are provided by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation audit of probation areas and are shown in the table. This gives the results of the most recent audit. The audit covers supervision of probation orders, community service orders (as community punishment orders and community rehabilitation orders were at the time) and licence cases only. The national totals show that breach action was taken in 65 per cent. of cases in accordance with national standards; in a further five per cent. of cases, management authorisation not to breach was given, also in line with national standards.

  Offenders breached

  Area

  Number breached

  Percentage

  Avon

  45

  83.3

  Bedfordshire

  13

  76.5

  Berkshire

  3

  37.5

  Cambridgeshire

  18

  64.3

  Cheshire

  27

  69.2

  Cornwall

  4

  100

  Cumbria

  25

  80.6

  Derbyshire

  41

  75.9

  Devon

  23

  54.8

  Dorset

  19

  86.4

  Durham

  22

  95.7

  Dyfed

  3

  100

  East Sussex

  21

  75

  Essex

  19

  79.2

  Gloucestershire

  18

  62.1

  Greater Manchester

  67

  68.4

  Gwent

  14

  87.5

  Hampshire

  39

  69.6

  Hereford and Worcs

  14

  73.7

  Hertfordshire

  12

  85.7

  Humberside

  46

  65.7

  ILPS

  52

  36.9

  Kent

  17

  31.5

  Lancashire

  60

  85.7

  Leicestershire

  38

  80.1

  Lincolnshire

  24

  96

  Merseyside

  68

  79.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  12

  66.7

  Middlesex

  33

  45.8

  NELPS

  31

  66.0

  Crime (Economic Costs)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he(a) has set and (b) plans to set for reducing the economic costs of crime. [159019]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Public Service Agreement (PSA) for the Criminal Justice System commits Criminal Justice Departments to reduce the economic and social costs of crime by March 2004.

  There are a wide range of economic and social costs associated with crime, not all of which are easy to measure, but the Criminal Justice Departments have jointly developed an indicator of the economic and social costs of crime as part of the PSA commitment. The methodology used to measure the economic and social cost of crime was published in a report in December 2000, "The economic and social costs of crime" (Home Office Research Study 217). This sets out clearly how the figures have been derived and estimates the total economic and social cost of crime to England and Wales in 1999–2000 to be £60 billion.

  Work is ongoing to develop and improve the estimates as part of the process of monitoring progress in meeting this PSA commitment.

  Community Sentences (Reconviction Rates)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's predicted two-year reconviction rate for offenders serving community sentences is in each year from 2001 to 2004, inclusive. [159031]

  Mr. Boateng
  Predicted two-year reconviction rates used in the measurement of Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets are not statistical forecasts, but are adjustments made once actual reconviction rates are known which make allowances for variations in the age, sex, offence and previous criminal history profile of persons commencing community sentences. These factors are known to be associated with the risk of reoffending. The purpose of the "predicted" rate is to ensure that comparisons between the reconviction rate when an improvement target was set and the reconviction rate when improvement is measured are meaningful.

  The predicted rates will also take account of external factors associated with other PSA targets, which impact on reconviction, but not on the underlying rate of reoffending. The external factors include reduced delays in achieving a conviction (PSA target 8) and the increased proportion of recorded crimes where the offender is brought to justice (PSA target 6).

  The predicted rate can be calculated only when the characteristics of offenders commencing community sentences in a given year are known.

  Firearms Offences
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take to meet his target of a 3 per cent. annual reduction in the number of offences involving firearms. [159034]
  398W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The police and other law enforcement agencies are working to combat the illegal possession and criminal use of firearms and the Government are fully committed to supporting them in this task and in carrying out their general operational responsibilities. The United Kingdom has strict laws governing the possession and use of firearms and the penalties for contraventions are high. Among measures which are currently being taken to tackle gun crime are:Improved Home Office advice on the safe keeping of firearms to prevent them being stolen;
  Stricter standards of deactivation to stop guns from being restored to working order;
  Possible restrictions on the sale or possession in public of replica weapons;
  Targeted policing measures against particular groups of criminals associated with armed violence;
  Proactive intelligence gathering on sources of weapons used in crime. In particular, work is in hand to develop a National Firearms Forensic Intelligence Database which will allow information on firearms (including bullets, cartridge cases, weapons and weapons components) used in crime to be captured, collated and links established between different incidents; and
  A national database of firearms certificate holders is being established.

  The Government have also supported international efforts to negotiate a United Nations Protocol against the illicit manufacture of and trafficking in firearms.

  It is important that it action to reduce the number of offences involving firearms which represents about 0.1 per cent. of all offences, is not taken in isolation from other criminal activities which may encourage the possession of guns, such as the drugs trade.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charges of racial discrimination have been made by staff of the Commission for Racial Equality against the commission itself in each of the last three years; and how many of these were settled before reaching the employment tribunal. [158879]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of complaints of racial discrimination made by the Commission for Racial Equality staff in each of the last three years is as follows:1998: 8
  1999: 3
  2000: 3.

  Of the 14 cases, none are on-going. Six cases were settled before reaching the employment tribunal, six were dismissed by tribunals and two were withdrawn.

  Car Phones
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers have been prosecuted for not having proper control of their vehicle while driving and holding a mobile phone in the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [158521]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available.
  399W
  There is no separate offence of driving a vehicle using a mobile telephone, and any prosecution is likely to be for driving without due care and attention, for which there were 9,900 prosecutions in the Metropolitan Police Area (including City of London) in 1999 with 11,000 in 1998 and 12,300 in 1997. Data for 2000 are not yet available.

  It is also possible for such drivers to be prosecuted or issued with a fixed penalty for not being in proper control of a vehicle (Regulation 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986), but such cases cannot be separately identified in the statistics collected centrally.

  Appointments
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appointments he has made since May 1997 in accordance with the Nolan criteria; how many appointees were aged over 60 years at the time of appointment; and how many declared a political affiliation for(a) the Conservative party, (b) the Labour party and (c) the Liberal Democrats. [158535]

  Mr. Straw
  Since May 1997, I have made a total of 440 appointments and reappointments to Home Office public bodies falling within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Eighty nine of these appointees were aged over 60 years at the time of appointment. Five appointees declared a political affiliation for the Conservative party, 16 for the Labour party and none for the Liberal Democrats.

  The Government are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed to public bodies. Political affiliation was not a criterion for any of the above appointments.

  Race Crimes
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review his policy on the definition of a racially motivated offence. [158269]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The definition of what amounts to a racially aggravated offence is contained in section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in relation to the nine racially aggravated offences listed in sections 29 to 32 of that Act. Where race is concerned, the definition relating to the aggravating factor in sentencing, for all other offences, is contained in section 153 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. I believe these to be practical and enforceable definitions.

  I will examine the findings of any research into the implementation of the provisions.

  New Hospital (Worcester)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to consult the residents of Worcestershire before offering advice to Her Majesty the Queen on the name for the new hospital currently under construction in Worcester. [158481]

  Mr. Straw
  In offering advice to Her Majesty The Queen on the use of royal names and titles, I will take into account the views of other appropriate Government 400W
  Departments, and any other representations received. There is, of course, no guarantee of a successful outcome for any application to use a royal name or title.

  Crime (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the percentage of recorded crime in Lancashire that was drug-related in the last five years. [158403]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Recorded crime statistics include statistics on drugs offences, but do not record whether other offences are related to offenders' drug habits. The percentage of drugs offences in overall recorded crime in Lancashire in the last five financial years for which figures are available is given in the table. It should be noted that there was a change in counting rules on 1 April 1998 which increased the drugs offences counted. Before this date, only drugs trafficking was counted, whereas after this date possession and other offences were also counted. The change in counting rules also affected the general counting of offences, including other expansions of the offences counted, and so the percentages of drugs offences counted before and after 1 April 1998 will not be directly comparable.

  Year ending March

  Recorded drugs offences as a percentage of all recorded crime in Lancashire

  1996

  0.4

  1997

  0.5

  1998

  0.5

  1999

  3.5

  2000

  2.9

  Both the British Crime Survey and the new England and Wales Arrestees Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) programme of interviewing and drug testing arrestees shed some light on the links between drugs and crime, although these conclusions do not relate specifically to Lancashire.

  For England and Wales as a whole, the British Crime Survey 2000 reported that 18 per cent. of victims of violent crime believed their attacker was under the influence of drugs.

  The second report on the NEW-ADAM programme of interviewing and drug testing arrestees was published in August 2000 (Home Office Research Study 205, Drugs and Crime: The results of the second developmental stage of the NEW-ADAM programme). The research, undertaken by the University of Cambridge at four sites (London, Liverpool, Nottingham and Sunderland), found that 69 per cent. of arrestees tested positively for at least one drug, excluding alcohol.

  It should be remembered that because an arrestee tested positive for drugs or a victim believed that a perpetrator was under the influence of drugs it does not necessarily mean that the consumption of drugs caused the crime to be committed. As a result, while the NEW-ADAM study and the British Crime Survey advance our knowledge of the links between drugs and crime, it will always be difficult to calculate a single percentage figure calculating precisely what proportion of crime is drug-related.

  Crime (West Sussex)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) crimes and (b) violent crimes were recorded in west Sussex in (i) the latest year for which figures are available, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1997. [158574]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As west Sussex is a part of the Sussex police force area, figures for west Sussex are not generally available. Recorded crime data for the Sussex police force area are given in the table. There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, and also an expansion of the offences recorded, which mean that figures before and after that date are not directly comparable. For example, from that date, figures for offences of violence against the person additionally include figures for common assault and assault on a constable, among other offences.

  All recorded crime

  All violent crime

  1996

  118,086

  7,848

  1997

  111,624

  7,561

  Year ending September 2000

  137,961

  19,624

  Data for some offences, including the components of violent crime (violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery), have been recorded on a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area basis for the period since 1 April 1999. Totalling CDRP figures for west Sussex shows that there were 8,702 violent offences recorded in that area in the year ending September 2000.

  Animal Rights Extremists
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the co-ordination of Government action to prevent intimidation by animal rights extremists. [159533]

  The Prime Minister
  I am answering this question, as I have responsibility for establishing ministerial committees.

  On 28 March the Government announced a range of measures to prevent the intimidation of people who work in, or are connected with, legitimate animal research establishments in our consultation paper "Animal Rights Extremism: Government Strategy", which was published
  402W
  that day. A new ministerial committee has now been formed with the task of taking forward, and wherever possible adding to these initiatives, with the overall aim of reassuring people involved in legitimate research upon animals, whether as scientific workers, managers, or investors, that criminal intimidation will not be allowed to succeed.

  The terms of reference for the committee will be:
  "To co-ordinate policy to protect those who work in, or are connected with, legitimate animal research establishments against intimidation by extremist groups."
  The membership will be:
  Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chairman)
  Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
  Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment
  Minister of State, Scotland Office
  Economic Secretary to the Treasury
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office.

  The Chief Scientific Adviser will also be invited to attend meetings of the group. Other outside experts will be invited to attend as necessary.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the code of practice in connection with the use of information provided to registered persons by the Criminal Records Bureau. [159532]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The code of practice for registered persons and other recipients of disclosure information is being published today under section 122(1) of the Police Act 1997, and will be placed on the Criminal Records Bureau's website as well. The code has also today been laid before Parliament in accordance with section 122(2) of the Act. In addition, we are publishing today an explanatory guide for registered persons and other recipients of disclosure information, and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

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

Pensions: Annuity Requirement
Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their decision not to remove the requirement on personal pension holders and stakeholder pensioners to purchase annuities after retirement.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the Government have repeatedly made clear, it is important that pension funds built up with the support of tax relief are used for their intended purpose; that is, to provide pensioners with a secure income in retirement. The Government welcome the wider diversity and choice now available in the annuity market and remain open to proposals for workable and affordable alternatives.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. The requirement applies to money purchase pension arrangements. There are two reasons why it is unfair. First, annuity rates at the moment are particularly poor, and will continue to be so. Secondly, capital which has been built up will be eroded through purchasing the annuity. I ask two questions—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Northbrook: I ask one question. Why will not the Government follow the Conservative policy of allowing pensioners to take out the capital except for a small annuity to prevent having to claim state benefits? Secondly, does not the Government's policy contravene the Human Rights Act, as evidenced by an individual who is taking the Government to court and is being advised by the Prime Minister's wife?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall try to answer the one, two or three questions that the noble Lord asked. I believe that his main question concerned why we do not take the same line on this matter as the Conservative Party. I believe that I made that point clear in my initial Answer; namely, we consider that the purpose of annuities is to guarantee secure income on retirement. That is achieved with a substantial contribution from the taxpayer in terms of tax collection forgone on contributions. We regard the position adopted by the Conservative Party as quite unacceptable.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for emphasising the fact that these pensions benefit from a
314
generous tax concession. Therefore, the public interest has already been well served. Is not a pension decision a financial decision? Sometimes such decisions turn out well, but other times they are less satisfactory. It is not surprising that as the Government have been successful in dealing with inflation interest rates are lower than they otherwise would be. Apparently there is a downside to that situation for someone who becomes a pensioner at this moment in time because interest rates are lower. At other times they may be higher. They may well be higher under Tory policies. Therefore, is it not sensible for the Government to stick to their policy and not be pushed into moving towards essentially an ad hoc response to a problem which will disappear anyway?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House that pension decisions are long-term decisions. Therefore, it is important for the individual to take the long-term perspective. Responsibility also rests upon all of us concerned with the public domain to take a long-term view of the arrangements to be made. As my noble friend has indicated, the reduction in inflation and the prudent management of the economy of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have ensured a reasonable level of returns on payments.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that allowing people to retain their pension rights as capital with no age limit at all would be entirely contrary to the purpose for which tax relief has been granted? Does he further agree that what the Conservatives are asking for is in effect a new form of tax avoidance?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that contribution. I make the obvious point that we are talking about considerable sums. Only 18 months ago the tax relief amounted to £14 billion. That sum is rising due to changing patterns of employment and the increasing numbers of people who adopt this strategy to prepare for their retirement. But, of course, as the noble Lord has indicated, the billions of pounds of public support provided at present would be as nothing to the sum required under a completely open-ended annuities provision. Such provision would negate any incentive for people to save at modest levels as best they can and would constitute an enormous subsidy to wealthy individuals.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, in explaining the Government's reluctance, will the Minister accept a slightly different version of his Answer to my noble friend? Are not the Government saying to the 3 million people who have pension savings, "We, the Government have a massive borrowing. We need to borrow £34 billion over the next four years. Therefore, we want your savings. Therefore, here is a rule which forces you to hand them over"?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, let me make the obvious point. It is not a rule invented by the present

315
Administration over the past two to three years. The rule has obtained over a considerable period. That is why there should be careful thought before any emendation of the rule.
If the noble Lord wants to draw attention to the public sector borrowing requirement, let me point out how much that has been reduced on repayment of debt under this Administration. The issue he raises would be in much sharper profile if, by some ridiculous misfortune, the country had voted a different way in 1997.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem with annuities arose when we had runaway inflation? People retired in relative opulence and ended their days in penury.
Before mucking about with annuities, does my noble friend agree that many who chose to take advantage of the scheme introduced by the Conservative Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke—it enabled them to spread taking their annuities over 10 years—wish that they had taken their annuity at the rate available at the time and could now benefit from the low inflation under this Government to bolster spending power?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the advantages for the whole community of low inflation. We all recognise that those who in retirement are on incomes with a limited capacity for growth are even more dependent upon prudent management of the economy which guarantees low and stable inflation rates.

Secondary Schools: Staffing
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they plan to carry out the next official curriculum and staffing survey in secondary schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the last secondary curriculum and staffing survey was undertaken in November 1996. My right honourable friend is considering whether to carry out a further survey during the 2001–2 academic year and will make an announcement at the appropriate time.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. However, is she aware that in the absence of an official survey for such a lengthy period, the Secondary Heads Association and The Times Educational Supplement undertook their own survey which was published on 2nd March? It found that nearly 10,000 permanent jobs were unfilled in secondary schools in England and Wales. Other
316
evidence indicates 20,000 temporary vacancies in primary and secondary schools. Does the Minister accept that she could stop the haemorrhaging of experienced teachers from the profession if the Government would grasp the nettle and do something constructive about teachers' working hours and conditions?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are 5,600 more teachers in England than there were in January 2000. There are 12,600 more than in January 1998. We have to consider the vacancies against that perspective. Of course, the Government are not complacent about vacancies in our schools. As I have said to the noble Baroness on a number of occasions, we are undertaking a range of initiatives to try to increase the numbers of young and mature people coming forward to train to be teachers as well as making it easier for those who decided to take early retirement to come back into the teaching profession.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the curriculum and staffing are closely linked? In view of the regrettable shortage of teachers in mathematics, science and other subjects, what is the Government's approach to a continuing problem?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may say again to my noble friend that the Government are trying to recruit more teachers into training. As a result of the steps we have taken, PGCE applications are up by 24 per cent on this time last year. That is a positive indication that some of the measures are working. Applications are up by 36 per cent in science, by 20 per cent in mathematics, by 31 per cent in English and by as much as 89 per cent in technology. Ninety-five per cent of science lessons and 91 per cent of maths lessons are being taught by those with relevant qualifications. Of course it would be excellent if we could get those figures to 100 per cent.

May Day Protests
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What precautions are being taken to protect people and property during the public protests planned to take place in London on 1st May.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police are responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the capital. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been in close touch with them and fully supports the steps they are taking to prevent injury and damage to property. I am sure that the whole House will join with me in

317
deploring the actions of those who would seek to turn London into a battleground in pursuit of their chosen cause.
Baroness Match: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does the noble Lord agree that last year the protest took place on a non-working day, when the scope to manage the problem was greater for the Metropolitan Police, yet a great deal of damage was done? What lessons have been learnt from that? What different approach will be taken this year? It will be a working day, with many more people about. Property will be more difficult to protect. How will the approach be more effective this year? The approach last year was not that effective.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the police are to be congratulated on their rigorous and vigorous efforts in countering the effects of the May Day anti-capitalist protest last year. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish to undermine their efforts and endeavours in that regard. Lessons have been learnt. That is why my right honourable friend and I met recently with the commissioners and the British Transport Police to ensure that all possible steps would be taken to prevent the recurrence of last year's outrages. Extra steps have been taken. There will be extra protection for public monuments and 6,000 police officers will be deployed on May Day to prevent any recurrence of what happened last year.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while we all value the right to demonstrate and to protest—indeed, it is part of the constitution—we shall support the Metropolitan Police if they robustly enforce the law and the courts if they robustly enforce sentences on those who have clearly committed violent acts during a demonstration that is plainly designed to disrupt the life of the city?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is clear that the whole House supports those sentiments. We have made the position plain and I am sure that the commissioners will ensure that officers intervene at the first sight of any problems next week, should any occur. The police deserve our fullest support in carrying out their duties. I am sure that everybody supports that sentiment.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in a society such as ours which jealously protects free speech, free assembly and the right to organise, it is absurd to refer to conspiracy to intimidate and threaten as "anti-capitalism"? It is anti-democracy. Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, the general public are sometimes surprised by the small number of prosecutions that follow such blatant and large-scale disorder and criminal acts. Will the Minister assure the House that the authorities will follow up any public disorder, such as that which has been threatened, by prosecuting and
318
convicting those responsible for criminal acts? That is the deterrent for this game that is being played 'with our free society.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course we must jealously protect all our freedoms, including the right to assembly and the right to protest. However, if people commit criminal acts they should be properly prosecuted. I assure the noble Lord that we shall give every encouragement to the prosecuting authorities to do exactly that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the protesters claim to be anti-capitalist. Should they not bear in mind that anti-capitalism is out of date? In what was communist Russia, capitalism is now encouraged. Even in communist China, capitalism flourishes. Would not the world starve without capitalism?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Well, my Lords, it would be unwise to start with a Home Office brief and end up in a discourse on the nature of political economy. I am sure that the noble Lord is perfectly right in his summation, but some people object to the way in which business is done. I am sure that the noble Lord agrees that everyone has a right to protest in their own way, but they must respect our democratic institutions. It is wrong when they disrupt the economic life of the city and the wellbeing of others.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I have a slightly simpler question. Is there any way under the law in which people can be prevented from wearing masks or other disguises when they take part in such demonstrations?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General tells me that the answer is yes, under the Carnarvon amendment to the Criminal Justice Act.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the word "people" in the Question includes Members of your Lordships' House? Is he aware that your Lordships' House will be meeting that day, as will at least one of its committees, taking evidence in public? Can he reassure us that the authorities of the House have taken seriously a possible threat to our proceedings and those of our committees?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be wise at this time to draw attention to the notice on the Peers' notice board, which has been placed with the full authority of the House officials. I was reminded in the corridor earlier by one official that all the entrances will be open and free access will be guaranteed to Members of your Lordships' House.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a problem of morale in the Metropolitan Police over issues such as this? If the police do not believe that they have the complete support of Her Majesty's Government and that the judiciary will take the proper action of sentencing and imprisonment, it will have a

319
very bad effect on the morale of the Metropolitan Police and, I dare say, other constabularies. Perhaps the Government should show a little more vigour in supporting the Metropolitan Police.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot accept any suggestion that Her Majesty's Government are giving anything other than the fullest possible support to the Metropolitan Police and all officers from other police forces at this time, particularly on 1st May. They will have the fullest support of Her Majesty's Government. We have been vigorous in our support. We have met leading police officers and explained that we wish the demonstrations to be dealt with firmly and effectively. We encourage the courts to do their job following arrest and, hopefully, prosecution.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, where does the money come from to pay for repairs to the property that is damaged? Last time considerable damage was done to property. Does it come from the public purse or from the insurers of the owners of the buildings? Who is responsible for meeting the costs?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a good question. Effectively, both parties meet the costs, in particular those who have responsibility for the public buildings, statues or monuments in question. We shall do all that we can to ensure that the most prominent public monuments are properly and adequately protected on the day.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the whole House appears to share the concern for the preservation of democracy and order. Does the Minister agree that making that concern effective includes not only the vigorous enforcement of the law, but also the finding of legitimate channels through which people can work for change? Will the Government consider further the question of how national political power can be brought to bear on the problems of global trade?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure that that is included in my briefing. The noble Earl is right to say that the widest possible opportunities should be given for people to make their point widely known. The noble Earl has a good track record in doing that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the demonstrations have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with terrorism and terrorising? Does he disagree with those who think that they are a manifestation of free speech, which they are not?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have already made it plain that I fully support freedom of speech and the proper rights of assembly and association. I suspect that the noble Earl is right that the demonstrations have very little to do with democratic institutions, but people must have an opportunity to
320
put their point of view fairly. I take the view that many of the demonstrators do not seek to operate in that way and some of them adopt the most underhand and criminal tactics.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Minister did not make it clear that it is already illegal to wear masks in a demonstration. Will he also tell us how the number of police who were on duty last year compares with the number proposed for this year?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, for the record, the noble Earl has raised a question that was asked earlier. It is illegal for people to wear masks in those circumstances. The law covers that. The number of police officers on duty is clearly an operational matter, but, as I have already said, there will be 6,000 officers on duty on 1st May to protect the public and ensure that everybody can go about their lawful business.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Public Health
3.29 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will publish the results of their assessment of the risks to public health of the burning of carcasses during the foot and mouth epidemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, yesterday the Government placed the assessment of the effects on health of emissions from pyres used for the disposal of animals on the Department of Health's website. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, despite the fact that the abiding image, and, indeed, the abiding reality, during this epidemic has been the burning of animal carcasses, only yesterday—two months into the epidemic—did we receive this rather hurried and inadequate report from the National Environmental Technology Centre. How can the Government argue that public health considerations have been uppermost in the minds of those dealing with the disposal of animals,
"when no proper risk assessment has been carried out until this point"?
Is that the result of complacency by the DETR or of incompetence by MAFF?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not accept the points that the noble Lord has put forward. Of course, he knows that I answer here for the Department of Health—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Of course, my Lords, I answer for the Government, but I do so from the

321
perspective of the Department of Health because this issue relates to public health, which is the responsibility of the Department of Health. I merely observe that the noble Lord missed out my department in his supplementary question.
On 1st March a substantial question and answer document, covering many public health issues, was sent to consultants in communicable diseases by the Public Health Laboratory Service in conjunction with the Department of Health. It covered a number of important issues in relation to public health.
On 1st April, because it was clear that problems of disposal were becoming particularly apparent in relation to large pyres, the Chief Medical Officer convened a risk assessment of disposals in general. It was important that the science was right. Therefore, care had to be taken over the quality of the advice that was being given. As part of that process, it was road-tested in the field. At local level, public health consultants employed by the health service took full part in discussions with other agencies. We take these matters very seriously.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that the greatest expertise in this field lies with DERA at Porton Down? Perhaps I may ask the Minister why that agency was not called in to carry out the assessments. It knows all about biological and chemical warfare and how to measure the amounts of such substances in the air. Why was that agency not called in when the public first started to express concern?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that it was, indeed, involved.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, will any members of the public who suffer damage to their health from the burning of carcasses be compensated for that damage?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a rather hypothetical question. Of course, it would be up to individuals to decide what action to take. I should make it clear that there is no completely risk-free method of disposing of carcasses. However, leaving carcasses on the ground is not an option because the risks to health from material which may contaminate water supplies is too great.
The advice given and the risk assessment published yesterday state clearly that, as with any fire, pyres will release pollutants that can be irritants. However, the risks are considered to be small for people situated more than two kilometres downwind of small pyres and more than three kilometres downwind of large pyres. That advice is being made available. Decisions must be made at local level, taking into account the local environmental conditions. However, I believe that the advice that has been given will be helpful to people in making those decisions.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the noble Lord, with his department, also carry out a risk assessment to public
322
health of animal carcasses which lie around in a state of decomposition because they have not been buried and which, as a result, explode and pass on the disease of foot and mouth to human beings?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a very pertinent remark. That is exactly why leaving carcasses on the ground is not an option and why we must pursue various methods of disposal. As I said, clearly there is no completely risk-free method. That is why the advice that has been made available is so important. We received advice from PHLS on 1st March, and the risk assessment is now available. The advice given to the field this week will help us to ensure that the risks are kept to a minimum.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, when the disease first broke out, we were told clearly that, once animals had been killed, there would be no further risk whatever to humans. However, in view of the noble Lord's Answer, that is obviously not true. As the Minister knows, in Devon enormous difficulty has been experienced in disposing of carcasses, and burning has been one method. Has the establishment in Devon decided to opt for smaller pyres, which apparently are less infective than the bigger ones? What is happening in Devon?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone has ever said that there can be no risk whatever to the public's health. However, from the risk assessment published by the department, it is clear that that risk can be kept to a minimum when strict measures are in place, backed up by robust guidelines.
In relation to air pollution, the risk assessment refers, as an example, to 250 cattle or the equivalent burned over three days. It concludes that, based on modelling around a generic 250-cattle pyre, it is unlikely that anyone situated more than two kilometres from the pyre would suffer adverse health effects. Similarly, in relation to 1,000 cattle or the equivalent burned over three days, the conclusion is that, at a distance of three kilometres from the pyre, few acute effects on sensitive individuals, such as those who suffer from asthma, would be expected.

Select Committees
3.36 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Roper be appointed a member of the Committee of Selection and the House of Lords' Offices Committee in the place of the Lord Harris of Greenwich deceased.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Armed Forces Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 17,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 18 and 19,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 20 to 22,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 23 to 29,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 30 to 32,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 33 and 34,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 35 and 36,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 37 to 40,

Schedule 8,

Clause 41.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Criminal Justice and Police Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 47,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 48 to 51,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 52 to 71,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 72 to 88,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 89 to 103,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 104 to 108,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 109 to 129,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 130 to 138,

Schedule 8,

Clause 139.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foot and Mouth Disease
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a
324
Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the foot and mouth outbreak.
"As I did on eight occasions before the Easter break, and have done once already this week in a session with the Agriculture Committee, I wish to update the House on the latest position on the disease, set out the measures that the Government are taking, and give right honourable and honourable Members the opportunity to raise points with me. I also wish to inform the House about the outcome of the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg this week and of my bilateral discussions there with the Dutch Agriculture Minister.
"As of 11 a.m. today, there had been 1,481 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease. For ease of reference, the House will wish to be aware that I am putting details of the number of cases in each constituency in the Library of the House today. This will be updated daily. I am also making available to individual Members full details of the cases in their own constituency to supplement the early warning system that we have had in place for some weeks now.
"Over 2 million animals have now been slaughtered for disease-control purposes, of which around three-quarters are sheep, 20 per cent are cattle and 5 per cent pigs. A further 475,000 animals have been slaughtered under the welfare slaughter scheme.
"The latest figures are that there are 152,000 animals awaiting slaughter and 218,000 carcasses awaiting disposal in Great Britain. The backlog of data not entered on the database which holds these figures has been greatly reduced. None the less, the figures still tend to overstate the position. There is a disposal backlog in Devon of around 85,000 animals but we are addressing that as a top priority. There are no significant disposal backlogs in other areas of the country.
"We continue to work closely with the Department of Health on the public health issues surrounding the various disposal routes. There are no completely risk-free options. Updated and consolidated guidelines were published on Tuesday. The method of disposal in each case is the safest and most effective in the circumstances.
"The House will be aware that the numbers of confirmed cases continue to fall week on week. From the highest point of on average 43 cases per day in the week ending 1st April, the average number of cases has fallen to 16 in the week to 22nd April.
"We have been able to lift restrictions in nine different areas where there have been no new cases for 30 days and thorough veterinary and serological testing has taken place. As a result, the tighter movement restrictions associated with infected

325
areas have been lifted from some 5,000 square kilometres—some 1.25 million acres—of the country, affecting around 12,500 farms.
"These figures show that we are continuing to bear down on the outbreak. We can be cautiously optimistic about the future course of the epidemic. The scientific advice was that the single most important action we should take against the spread of the disease was to reduce the time between report and slaughter to 24 hours. That has been our policy and it has been shown to be the right one.
"The Government's policies for slaughter on infected premises within 24 hours, and on contiguous premises within 48 hours, have been crucial to the control of the epidemic. Following formal advice from the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Veterinary Officer, I can today announce for England a broadening of the existing areas of discretion for local veterinary judgment in the light of the developing disease situation. The devolved administrations will be making their own statements.
"The joint advice from the chief scientist and chief vet follows detailed consultation with the veterinary profession and with the expert scientific group advising the Government on the course of the disease. This development is not, as some have reported, a relaxation; its purpose is to improve the achievement of the policy by refining the instructions given to staff in the field.
"The key points are as follows. We will continue to kill all animals that are dangerous contacts. That will include animals on a significant number of neighbouring farms and beyond. On other contiguous premises, susceptible animals will be killed. Cattle may, however, be spared if there is adequate biosecurity. This will be a matter for local veterinary judgment, taking account of all the circumstances. MAFF has already published guidance, agreed with the veterinary profession, on the biosecurity measures that farmers can take to help to protect their animals from infection. Where cattle are not culled, they will be subject to regular veterinary patrols.
"These refinements can be expected to provide some relief from automatic slaughter of cattle. They will not lead to a change in the policy of culling pigs and sheep on contiguous premises. Pigs pose a high disease risk and can spread the virus. Sheep can carry the disease without showing symptoms, thereby causing further undetected spread.
"Following consultation with interested parties, we shall be providing for the special circumstances of rare breeds of sheep and moorland or hefted flocks, based on tight biosecurity coupled with serological testing. Guidance on that will be issued to staff on the ground very shortly.
"These are complex matters of scientific and veterinary judgment. The new arrangements have to be right to ensure that they meet real needs and contribute to, rather than hinder, disease control.
326
"I would also like to update the House on the position regarding vaccination. The Government have given serious consideration to a cattle vaccination strategy in north Cumbria and possibly Devon, given the particular issues in those regions, particularly the intensity of infection in certain areas and the forthcoming turn-out of cattle from indoor housing to outdoor grazing. The Government accept the case for vaccinating cattle in those areas, but only if the vaccination programme is supported by a substantial majority of the farming community, by veterinarians, by the wider food industry and by consumers.
"As I said to the Agriculture Committee on Monday, that level of support is simply not there and the signs are that it will not now be achieved. Without that support, a vaccination programme would be very difficult to implement on the ground. We continue our discussions with all those who would be affected, but the case for a vaccination programme becomes less compelling as the number of daily confirmed cases and the weight of infection in the hot-spot area continue to fall.
"I turn now to the livestock welfare disposal scheme. In the first week of April, 53,000 animals were slaughtered under the scheme, rising to 143,000 in the second week of April and to more than 150,000 last week. Opening the scheme generated a great many applications—at one stage apparently it totalled close to 2 million animals. All applications have now been checked. That process has removed the many duplicated applications. One producer made 14 separate applications for the same animals. There are now applications covering some 1.3 million animals. Well over half a million of those animals have now been dealt with—either slaughtered and disposed of, or withdrawn voluntarily, or because there was no welfare case to answer. By the end of today the backlog in Great Britain will stand at fewer than three-quarters of a million animals. We are on course to have completely removed the backlog by mid-May.
"The welfare disposal scheme has been put in place to deal with severe welfare problems arising from the FMD movement restrictions that cannot be dealt with by any other means. I am glad that we have been able to extend progressively the options available to farmers to deal with welfare issues and to re-establish routes for their perfectly healthy livestock to be sold into the food chain.
"As of Monday of this week, farmers within infected areas but outside the three-kilometre protection zones surrounding infected premises have been able to enter healthy livestock into the food chain. As a result of those changes, the vast majority of farmers have practicable alternatives to the welfare disposal scheme. I am confident that the rate of withdrawals from the welfare scheme backlog will accelerate as a result.
"In re-establishing routes into the food chain across Great Britain as whole, it is imperative that the payment rates for the livestock welfare disposal

327
scheme do not act as a disincentive to farmers by providing more attractive financial options than the market itself. To ensure that that is the case, I am announcing today that payment rates for those categories of livestock normally slaughtered for meat or meat products have been revised. All animals collected for slaughter or slaughtered on-farm from Monday 30th April will receive the new payment rates. The rates for cull and draft ewes, new season lamb, clean cattle and pigs are being revised to a level that represents about 70 per cent of current market prices. For hoggets and cull sows, a higher rate of 80 per cent is being established. Arrangements have been put in hand to ensure that all those who have animals killed under the scheme are aware of the financial returns they will receive before they formally hand over their animals. It is still my intention that the scheme be reviewed on 22nd May. Meanwhile, I shall discuss with the industry the separate market-related issues in respect of light lambs and cull sows that would normally have gone for export. It would be misleading to expect an early resumption of export markets, but taxpayers cannot be expected to buy out this problem.
"In my Statement of 27th March, I outlined a number of actions flowing from our initial assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The consultation on the proposed ban on pigswill closed on 10th April. We received about 150 responses, almost all of which favoured a ban. A number of detailed issues were raised which we are urgently considering and I expect to make an announcement on that in the next week. We have also received a large number of comments on our proposed 20-day standstill period, after movements on farm, for sheep, goats and cattle. Again, the majority are in favour but a number of highly technical issues have emerged. Because of the considerable interest in this issue, I have decided to extend the consultation period for a further month from the initial deadline of 11th May. The cross-departmental examination of the controls on commercial and personal imports of meat and meat products is well under way, and I will have something more to say on that in the near future.
"At this week's meeting of the Agriculture Council, I reported in full to EU colleagues on the progress we have made to combat FMD and acknowledged the help that the Commission and other member states have given in that regard. As before, there was strong support for our efforts, and for those of my Dutch colleague, in our determination to eradicate FMD. At the instigation of Laurens Brinkhorst and myself, the EU will convene a conference later in the year to examine all aspects of our experience of this disease, in particular that of the UK and the Netherlands, in order to help to shape policy for the future, including vaccination policy.
328
"Combating foot and mouth disease remains the Government's top priority. But as the disease is brought under control, questions arise from farmers and others in the rural economy about options for the future. We therefore intend to work in partnership with farmers and others to identify ways of assisting the recovery of the farming sector. We shall focus in particular on farmers directly affected by FMD who face choices about their futures, and on those regions of the UK hardest hit by FMD, in particular Cumbria and Devon. As a first stage, the Government will concentrate on the need to provide high quality, targeted business and agronomic advice to individual farmers, and will explore ways of improving marketing in the livestock sector to the benefit of the whole food chain. The Government also intend to help livestock farmers to decide the optimum basis on which restocking should take place, taking into account the desirability of rebuilding flocks and herds which are high quality, disease free, extensively reared and farmed in environmentally sustainable ways. As a further component of our recovery strategy, we shall work with the industry to develop insurance options against both animal disease and the economic consequences which disease brings, and will share our thinking on this with other EU partners.
"Work to help farmers to emerge from the crisis has begun, and will form part of Government's longer-term strategy for helping UK farming to restructure in sustainable, market-oriented and environmentally responsible ways; and taking forward our policy for bringing about CAP reform."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier today. We welcome the reduction in the daily number of outbreaks recorded but I add a note a caution because, although the low figure of nine outbreaks was recorded, 18 new cases were recorded yesterday.
I offer my thanks, as I am sure do others in this House, to all the professionals and volunteers who have been working so hard during this long crisis—nine weeks. Many of them have worked 24 hours per day. It has been a very, very difficult task for them.
Today's announcement is a definite change of direction. But is the Minister not worried that some of the recent outbreaks which have occurred have been outside the central point of infection? In particular, is she not concerned about the spread of the disease in the Lake District, the wider spread of cases in Northumberland and the other case in my own home county of Leicestershire, in Ashby?
The Statement refers to the numbers of animals awaiting slaughter. Will the Minister say when and why the system of recording was altered? How does she explain MAFF's figures for Sunday 22nd April, when some 321,000 animals appear to have been disposed of in that day? I stress those are MAFF's figures. I ask her

329
to comment also on the NFU's suggestion that in Devon the definition for the disposal of carcasses has changed and that the movement of the carcass from a farm to a disposal point is counted as "animal disposed of" when, in fact, the animal has merely been moved.
Today's Statement has some key points, in particular the relief of cattle from culling on contiguous premises. I am sure that many will welcome that. But will the Minister enlarge upon the "adequate biosecurity" in the Statement? Will she also tell the House whether contiguous animals are routinely checked to establish whether or not they carry the infection? That has been so in the past. If not, will that be established? Obviously, that has important implications for neighbouring farmers who may think they are next to a clean farm, whereas, in fact, it has been identified as having the disease. Does the Minister concede that at best it is foolish for contiguous animals not to be tested as, as I said, that has huge implications for neighbouring farms?
The Statement refers to the special circumstances of rare breeds of sheep and moorland or hefted flocks which are being considered. I am sure that many in this House will, appreciate that. What are those considerations and how soon will they come into effect?
Likewise, have the Government reached any conclusions about the possible infectivity of the deer population? We have heard of individual cases where deer have been found with symptoms of the disease but there seems to be a problem in relation to the testing of those animals.
On the livestock welfare scheme, we welcome the fact that some 0.5 million animals have been dealt with. But that still leaves some 0.75 million animals awaiting slaughter. I understand that some of the animals may have been waiting up to six weeks. The Statement suggests that it is hoped that that will end by mid-May. Will the Minister confirm that even today there are still animals on farms which are suffering?
We also acknowledge the steps which are taken to enable more animals to go directly to the food chain. That is indeed welcome. We welcome also the proposed EU conference later this year to which the noble Baroness referred. But will the Minister confirm that that will happen only after our own inquiry has taken place and the results have been published?
The Statement speaks of government plans to work with the farming industry to assist the recovery of the farming sector. In that paragraph there is reference to the Government's desire to develop "insurance options". Will she enlarge on that and also on the phrase,
"the optimum basis on which restocking should take place"?
In the previous Statement, the Minister announced the appointment of some 11 directors of operations. I thank her for the letter which she sent me in that regard. She told me that seven of them were MAFF personnel. But the letter did not—and nor does the Statement—define their role. Who is in charge nationally? Is it MAFF, the Ministry of Defence or No. 10? Secondly, at regional and local level who is in
330
charge? Is it one of those newly appointed directors, MAFF, regional personnel or the Army? We are still not clear as to the line of command and who is responsible for what, either nationally or locally.
This outbreak is costing the country dear in terms of the misery of all the farmers and their families, the many small rural businesses and their suppliers, those who depend on visitors coming to the countryside and those who depend on the countryside for their living. I must say to the House that the Government's initial slow reaction to the gravity of the situation and their apparent lack of leadership have allowed this disease to get out of control.
Equally—and I welcome some of the measures in the Statement—I am sure the Minister will recognise that it is absolutely essential that that does not happen again through too rapid a relaxation of the procedures, just as there seems to be some regaining of control of the disease. We need to see an eradication of this outbreak as soon as possible. We look forward to the restructuring of the industry which offers hope to farmers and to the public as a whole.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. Having said that, we all realise that the countryside is in crisis and that the foot and mouth epidemic has been handled extremely badly for weeks. But yesterday, common sense prevailed at last.
I hold the Minister in very high esteem. She has done her job well for a long period of time. She has been very helpful to me and to others. At times, I have honestly felt sorry for her because she has been badly advised by some of her senior government advisers. Week after week the Minister has been given the wrong advice. I shall make reference to only one incident in Wales, in the Eppynt range area where thousands of lambs were buried. That was a big mistake on behalf of the ministry. All those animals then have to be lifted again and burnt. That is one example of bad advice from people who should have known better.
Like many others, I hold the view that thousands of healthy animals have been slaughtered for no good reason. It seems to me that many MAFF advisers are keen to slaughter and kill stock. I wonder whether they are trying to safeguard their own interests and jobs. They went to Devon yesterday and tried two or three times to kill the white calf, Phoenix, but failed. Here I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for offering help, guidance and common sense. That is what is needed in a crisis such as the present one.
On a positive and constructive note I should like to ask a few questions and put forward a few proposals. First, I hope that by June or July together we shall have conquered this epidemic. If so, can the Minister tell us when the livestock auction marts will again start selling livestock? Secondly, we on these Benches are seeking compensation for communities where there is one mass burial site or where mass burning has taken place. Will the Government help those communities which have suffered? The Minister put forward long-term proposals. However, the agricultural industry must survive this year.

331
Perhaps I may make a suggestion to the Minister. New Zealand sells 130,000 tonnes of lamb to this country annually. We export 120,000 tonnes to Europe. I hope that my figures are right; they are approximate. This year we shall not be able to export our lambs to Europe. I have spoken to members of the New Zealand lamb board. They are willing to help British farmers for one year by sending all their new stock to Europe this year. We could then benefit through that market and sell all our livestock here at home. That would help the trade enormously.
My next question is: have the Government any plans to stop importing cheap meat from foreign countries? I hold the view that we should not have bought it in the first place, but the answer will come from the Minister. I am disappointed that from next week farmers will receive 30 per cent less for their livestock than their friends received this week and last week. There is bound to be a reason for that, but I do not think that it is fair to the agricultural community.
My final question is to ask whether the Government will discuss the future of the agricultural industry with the supermarkets, which, as I have said many times, are in charge of our agricultural industry. I do not refer to the common agricultural policy but to the supermarket policy of paying less than the cost of production.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from both Front Benches. I shall try to deal with the main issues raised. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that no one is being complacent. We noticed the figure of 18 new cases yesterday. No one suggests anything other than that the situation must be considered week on week. Noble Lords will recall me saying that we should not take only one day's figures, whether good or bad. However, the epidemiologists are clear with their advice; that is, that given the halving of the average weekly rate over the past two weeks, there are grounds for optimism about the course of the disease. I believe that the words of the Chief Scientific Adviser the other day were that it would be a rocky road. The progress of an epidemic cannot be predicted in advance. Undoubtedly there will be setbacks.
Of course I am worried and concerned about individual cases, particularly if they are in areas which have not previously been infected. However, the most serious concerns are not geographical; they relate to not being able to establish in epidemiological terms the link to the source of the case. Every new case is subject that sort of scrutiny.
The noble Baroness suggested that today's Statement is a change of direction. I do not believe that to be true. It is a refinement of policy, particularly regarding contiguous premises. I understood that that was welcomed by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, as a possible way of protecting more cattle. The noble Lord stated that many healthy animals have died in the course of this outbreak. That
332
is true, but sadly it is only in retrospect that one knows which of the 20 per cent of animals were incubating the disease. One may never know which ones ended up being infectious. The odds are that in five contiguous premises, one will contain animals which are incubating the disease. If we wait until we find out which one it is, another five premises will have been infected, and so forth. That is why this situation is extremely difficult. An element of broad-brush policy must be invoked.
I assure the noble Baroness that this is not too rapid a relaxation. We shall undertake exactly the veterinary scrutiny which she suggests on cattle which are not taken out. We shall still be taking out any contiguous premises where there are dangerous contacts. However, there has been a great deal of representation for individual veterinary scrutiny. That is what we are able to deliver at present.
The noble Baroness asked about figures. I do not suggest, and I do not think that she really suggests, that anyone at MAFF said that on Sunday 22nd April we disposed of 322,000 animals. The figures changed—I believe it was made clear on the website why they changed—because the data collection had not kept up with the facts on the ground. For good reason, people on the ground were more concerned with doing the job than with counting, recording and inputting into central systems what had been done. We undertook a catching-up process in order to give more accurate data, which we can now do. I find it slightly ironic that we are being criticised for manipulating the data in the past in a way which made it look as if we were performing less well than we were. However, that is life.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would give way?
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am happy to give way. However, I am conscious of trying to reply in 20 minutes.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I shall be brief. It is important to say that the figures are correct. The Minister agreed with that. There was no question of suggesting that there was anything wrong with them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we certainly agree that it is important that the figures are correct. However, I was asking that there should be no suggestion that something underhand or deceitful was happening in our disposing of 322,000 animals in one day because we were trying to get the figures correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, for whom I have great affection and who has always been most kind to me, said that sometimes Ministers were badly advised and criticised some people in the field. An enormous number of people in the field have been working very long hours, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, and have been putting in dedicated work as public servants. They have been denigrated in the press and

333
elsewhere by people who find them an easy target because they cannot answer back. We have all depended on those people, and the fact that we are seeing a reduction in cases of the disease is due to their efforts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me about the work being carried out on insurance. She will recall that it began in the wake of the classical swine fever outbreak last year and has been developed from that experience. I cannot give details now but I shall do so as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness also asked about deer, and I can say that there have been no recorded cases of the disease in deer in this outbreak. A veterinary risk assessment on deer has been produced. There is no evidence that the disease has been passed either to farmed deer or the wild deer population. Although several possible cases have been reported and tests have been undertaken, all have been negative. The results of tests on two deer are awaited. I hope that that is reassuring.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, asked when livestock markets would re-open. I cannot give a definite date because it is a risk-based decision. Given the role of markets in the spread of this disease, we must look carefully at how we minimise and eliminate risk. That is tied closely to the consultation on the 20-clay restraint on movement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked who was in charge. The person in the Government who is in charge is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must be in charge in a situation such as this because the work of a large number of departments is involved.
My noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about health issues. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has been closely involved with local authorities, for example, in respect of footpaths. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the lead department in respect of tourism. MAFF has prime responsibility for disease control. It is important that we have the best scientific advice, so the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government is involved.
Equally, at local level the role of regional operational directors is to pull together the efforts which are made by everyone; for instance, veterinarians and local authorities. People who are seconded to their staff and the Army have always made it clear that they see the leadership in terms of disease control to be with MAFF and their responsibility to be supportive and operational. We must work together because this is not a matter for one department or one individual, either nationally or locally.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I want to refer to the intention of the Council of Ministers to set up a conference later this year for European Union countries to share their experiences. My experience is that those in Brussels do not always pay as much
334
attention as they ought to scientific evidence. Will the noble Baroness return to a suggestion which I made when we previously debated the matter? I suggested that we ought immediately to set up a public inquiry on the same basis as the old Northumberland inquiry. The Minister was unable to answer on that occasion but I hope that today she will be able to tell us that an inquiry will be set up at some time. Setting up one immediately would appear to be best.
If there is to be an inquiry, I repeat that there would be no more distinguished or better person to be chairman of that inquiry than my noble friend Lord Plumb. He has the prestige, as a former President of the European Parliament, and the experience, as a former member of the Northumberland inquiry.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's respect for his noble friend Lord Plumb. I recognise the plea he put in for a public inquiry into the outbreak and his suggestion about its leadership. He will understand that it is not for me to respond directly to that. I must say that sometimes it has felt as though we have been conducting a public inquiry as we have gone along, but that is another issue.
The work within Europe is forward-looking. Of course it must draw on our experience and that of the Dutch in this outbreak. However, there is also the possibility that in the light of scientific advance the vaccination policy that has been commonplace throughout Europe will be looked at again. Most of all, I hope that we can use this opportunity as a lever to change the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about animal carcasses left on farms. I am sure that she will agree that in human or environmental terms it is not acceptable to leave dead animals on farms unburied for in excess of 24 hours, particularly as the weather is getting warmer.
In view of the difficulties in Devon, will she institute a review of on-farm burial where that is practical and can be carried out quickly? Where it is not practical, will she do what has been done elsewhere so successfully and set a target time for the removal of slaughtered animals if necessary to a suitable storage point if no immediate burial or other disposal point is available? It must be wrong to leave the animals as they are at present.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the seriousness of the position in Devon is beyond doubt. It would he wrong to offer my noble friend a review of on-farm burial. It has been an option from the beginning of the outbreak. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to put it in place because of the geology and the water table in particular, which have caused problems in Devon. There have been problems as regards burial not only on farms but at a number of sites which have been urgently examined and where it has not been possible. I assure the noble Baroness that I understand the consequences for the individual and the

335
unacceptability of leaving animals on the ground. That is why a great effort is being put into the situation in Devon.
I suspect that there will not be a single answer and that a variety of means will be used. We are setting ourselves targets for clearing up the carcasses. Anyone who heard Brigadier Birtwistle on the radio this morning would acknowledge what he has managed to do in Cumbria, where there was a similar problem some time ago. We need to concentrate on the one remaining area in which there are a large numbers of carcasses awaiting disposal.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, as I speak every single animal on my farm is being destroyed, and I am not exaggerating. Do the figures to which the Minister referred in the Statement relate to the whole of the UK or purely to England and Wales? Furthermore, can she clarify the position re vaccination at the present time?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as for the animals awaiting slaughter and the carcasses, the figures relate to Great Britain, and I believe that the same applies to the number of animals that have been taken. If that is incorrect, I shall inform the noble Lord.
As far as concerns vaccination, we have not progressed a great deal further from our Statement about the possibility of limited vaccination in parts of Cumbria and Devon, for which we have cover from the European Union. That would be vaccination to live, not simply as a way to smooth over disposal. Such vaccination would not be across species; it would be for cattle. The Government would be willing to instigate vaccination as a measure en route to regaining FMD-free status, not FMD-free with vaccination. But we recognised that that policy could not be implemented if there was no buy-in on the part of the farmers involved because they felt that there was, in turn, no buy-in from consumers or retailers. The enormously strong opposition to vaccination among those representing farmers has made it very difficult to go forward with that policy. If one looks at the present Dutch experience, the introduction of a limited vaccination policy is not an easy ride.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement about progress in the control of the foot and mouth outbreak. Does the noble Baroness agree that, despite criticism as to what should have been done in the early stages of the outbreak, the present drastic policy has not only reduced the outbreak to controllable levels but, in the long run, will provide a greater safeguard to the national herds of this country than other means of control? Does the Minister also agree that the statement that contiguous culling is a necessary procedure emphasises that the disease is spread contiguously from animal to animal and farm to farm? The reason for contiguous culling is to take the infected animals out of circulation before they can pass on the infection.
336
The noble Baroness dealt with vaccination. I believe we all agree that there may well be a case for vaccination of specific groups of animals, such as dairy cattle, but it now appears that the danger to that sector of the livestock industry is receding as a result of the culling policy which takes out the infection and the fact that in certain areas of the country restrictions are now being removed. I hope the Minister agrees that it is right to have a local analysis of the situation. A local individual knows much better than, say, Whitehall what should and should not be done.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to focus regimes on particular areas of the country. For example, those which have had no cases at all can have different movement arrangements from areas which have had high infectivity. I also understand the desire to have individual assessment of farms. The noble Lord described very well why there is danger in simply waiting to see when disease emerges because there is a possibility of it spreading. When we emerge from this it will be impossible for any of us to say whether the process would have been quicker or longer had another course of action been undertaken. One can never put the clock back and re-run history.
Sometimes people tend to overemphasise time. The noble Lord referred to the possibility of mistakes being made early on or policies requiring change. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that animals had been waiting for six weeks in the welfare disposal scheme. The scheme was announced only on 22nd March, so I do not believe that any animals could have been waiting for six weeks.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I should like to return to scientific advice, to which my noble friend Lord Geraint has referred. The Minister referred to advice on the ground. The noble Baroness will be aware that on a worldwide basis highly qualified scientists have been critical of the advice available here. I am sure that, like me, the Minister has read the article in The Times this morning by Magnus Linklater which raises this matter. At the end of the Statement the Government said that they would further investigate the whole question of how the outbreak was handled and what we might do another time. Can the noble Baroness confirm that that will be looked at in whatever they do on that front?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it would be nice if there was such a thing as unanimous scientific advice which everyone agreed was the best and which told one that there was only one thing to do. I am afraid that that is not the position. Scientists vary in their views. It is not possible simply to say that one is getting the right scientific advice. The Chief Scientific Adviser has brought together a group of scientists, as he has brought together several different groups of epidemiologists, so that one is not relying simply on one person. There are always dissenting voices. That is in the nature of scientific debate and advance. It is right that we have that debate and dispute. I ask the

337
House not to make the assumption—I know that the noble Baroness does not do so—that simply because someone challenges a policy based on a piece of advice it means that the original advice or policy must have been wrong.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, many of us will have been pleased with the tribute my noble friend paid to the staff of MAFF in their difficult job in present circumstances. Perhaps I may suggest that the same tribute should he paid to the staff working in the agriculture departments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which is the one that I know particularly well. I should like to put a specific question about the disposal of cattle which are over 30 months old. Can my noble friend say a little more about that disposal and the potential hazards from BSE?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am happy to extend support to everyone in the field, in whatever part of the United Kingdom. Whether they be in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England, they have worked enormously hard; and equally colleagues in devolved authorities have been extremely supportive and helpful.
As to the disposal of cattle, there has been a very careful risk assessment throughout the period. The advice which followed the special meeting of SEAC was that the decision tree, if you like, of best disposal route for cattle would always be, first, rendering and, secondly, incineration. There is a different decision tree of possible routes. But the distinction that is made is between animals born after the ban—post-August 1996—and OTMS animals, based on the fact that the BSE epidemic has progressed since that time. But the committee's advice is being taken and implemented as far as concerns the disposal of cattle.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement today. Perhaps I may say in her support that her explanation for the fluctuations in the numbers was exactly as I understood the MAFF website. I was also aware that as early as January and February of this year MAFF was advising farmers to take out insurance for animal diseases. So that is not anything new.
The Minister obviously knows that Dr Fred Brown has been in London this week. I chaired a meeting in the House of Lords on Tuesday. Is the noble Baroness aware that I was informed that the scientists advising her were for once in total agreement about vaccination? In fact, the NFU dissented. In view of the huge number of letters that I have had from people wanting to vaccinate their animals, can the Minister bear in mind that the NFU does not represent the majority of farmers? A number of farmers who are not represented by the NFU would like to be able to vaccinate their animals.
338
I am pleased that the Government are now thinking about extensive farming instead of intensive farming. As an extensive farmer I find that very pleasing. It will enable the British to do what they do best: produce excellence in small numbers.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, having visited the farm of the noble Countess and seen the quality of the livestock that she keeps, I think that her farm could probably be a beacon farm for future agricultural developments.
I hear what the noble Countess says about the NFU. All I can say is that the Government have made their position on vaccination clear. That was based on advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer and from the Chief Scientific Adviser. However, we said very clearly that we needed majority support among those affected by it. Vaccination is a policy that would be put in place in order to support the livestock industry and, without its support, it would be hard to implement. I recognise, however, what the noble Countess says because I have received correspondence on this and know that many farmers, although perhaps not a majority, take a dissenting view from the leadership of the NFU and would support vaccination in certain cases.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the Minister please answer the point raised by Professor Fred Brown? He offered the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a machine and a test which would within two hours have shown whether or not sheep were infected. That would have obviated the need for slaughter. He goes on to say that,
"Culling animals on contiguous farms achieved nothing but unnecessary suffering".
Is the Minister aware that Professor Fred Brown is not just your average professor; he was Professor of Virology at Yale University; he is a visiting scientist at one of the top testing laboratories in America; and he was deputy head of Pirbright. So he is not someone who should be looked down on.
Is the Minister aware that Dr Simon Barteling of the Netherlands also recommended vaccination? Is she further aware that the excellent article by Mr Linklater in The Times, quotes Dr Paul Kitching saying on "Channel 4 News" that the computer model that the institute is using was inaccurate. He said:
"Yet his institute has been the source of much of the information [to government] on which the slaughter policy has been predicated".
He said that Pirbright has got it all wrong. That is what he said on the news.
Can the Minister answer any of those questions? But if any of them are true, it is such a damning indictment of government policy that it does not bear thinking about. Noble Lords opposite may smile, but that is what it is.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, Professor Brown is undoubtedly a distinguished scientist. He had a distinguished career at Pirbright before he retired and went to the United States. He has continued his interest in FMD since then. His views are important in

339
this debate. But, as I said earlier, they are not the only views that are heard. The IAH and Pirbright are accepted world-wide as the authoritative scientific knowledge base for FMD and we are very lucky to have them in this country. I do not think that anyone should denigrate their reputation or their contribution.
So far as concerns the Smart Cycler, to which the noble Earl referred, I gently suggest to him that he should perhaps look at the statement that the Chief Scientific Adviser has put out about this machine before he thinks that it could have completely obviated the need for slaughter. The system has been used to diagnose animal influenza under field conditions. It has not been validated for the detection of FMD and has had no trial. We were asked whether it could be evaluated in the course of this outbreak. There are serious concerns about its effectiveness as a tool, not least regarding its potential for spreading infection. Members of your Lordships' House would be very quick to criticise if we had brought in an untried, untested and unverified technology on the basis simply of claim.

Health and Social Care Bill
4.35 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 3 [LPS Schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Care Trusts where voluntary partnership arrangements]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 57, line 20, at end insert ", and such designation shall require the Care Trust to exercise any prescribed health-related functions of the local authority to which the application relates in the manner set out in the application"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. I shall not be speaking to Amendment No. 40 which I would like to degroup, speak to and move after this group of amendments.
When dealing with this group of amendments, I want to emphasise from the outset that on these Benches we broadly welcome voluntary care trusts being set up under Clause 53. Our amendments are about the governance of care trusts along with many other organisations such as the Local Government Association and voluntary organisations. We believe that care trusts properly constituted to reflect their joint nature between the NHS and local government could add to the existing Health Act 1999 flexibilities and create another option for developing and delivering integrated services.
However, the accountability arrangements for these organisations remain an area of major concern. The discussion of these matters in Committee raised a number of issues, particularly of the selection of elected representatives on to care trust boards and the accountability arrangements for the delegated services.
Amendment No. 36 makes clear that the care trust will be required to operate within clearly specified boundaries agreed by both the local authority and the NHS body. At the moment the proposals for care trusts are set out in very broad terms and do not make clear how these organisations will build on the strengths and different approaches of both partners. It will be important to ensure that when a care trust is established there is a clear understanding of the parameters under which its parent organisation will expect it to operate.
That should include clear agreement from the outset about the local authority policies and statutory duties that the care trust will be expected to follow; for example, will the duty of best value continue to apply to local authority services provided by a care trust? Of course it should. Therefore, arrangements need to be in place to ensure that the care trust will implement the outcome of a best value review.
With regard to Amendment No. 37, voluntary care trust arrangements will involve local authorities delegating part of their functions to another body. However, as we understand the intention, the local authority will remain ultimately responsible for those functions and for ensuring their proper discharge. That means that it is essential that the lines of accountability for these functions are properly represented in the structures and governance of care trusts. The special role of councillors as members of both the care trust board and of the parent authority needs to be particularly carefully addressed.
Local authorities should have the option to devise locally agreed accountability arrangements for any delegated functions within an agreed national framework. However, all local arrangements must involve the care trust board being clearly accountable to the local authority for the delegated functions, just as board members will have accountability to the Secretary of State for the NHS functions.
The issues covered by these amendments need to be fully addressed in the detailed work on regulations and guidance, but it is important that the principles underpinning these concerns are recognised during the passage of the Bill. On these Benches we are seeking clear reassurances that, first, arrangements for accountability are recognised as a centrally important issue; secondly, that care trusts will have an accountability to both parent organisations for any functions they are delegated; and, thirdly, that very careful consideration will be given during the preparation of regulations and guidance as to how those accountabilities shape the role of elected members on care trust boards.
Finally, as regards Amendment No. 38, if care trusts are to be genuinely joint bodies and a partnership of equals, the board of the care trust must have strong

341
local government representation. Governance arrangements must reflect the different status of elected members, with their dual accountability to the local authority and to the Secretary of State for Health as corporate members of the care trust board.
The selection of these members is equally critical. Elected members have already been through a process of democratic selection and must therefore he appointed by the local authority to the board, subject only to the minimum of the Independent Appointments Commission probity checks. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in this group of amendments, especially Amendment No. 37. I shall be surprised if the Minister, with his knowledge of both the health service and local government, does not understand the anxiety that currently exists, particularly in local government circles, about the proposals for care trusts and their governance arrangements. In Committee, the Minister went to great lengths to stress that care trusts would be a partnership of equals. However, I have considerable fears that it may not work out like that in practice.
From the point of view of local authorities, we are looking at a weakening of the chain of democratic accountability and the removal from them of hands-on responsibility for social care services. At the same time, the local authority would be expected to delegate a large slice of its income and assets to a body over which it had no direct control. It is hard for me to see why that combination of features should appeal to a local authority. Certainly, I wonder how many will regard the advantages of moving to care trust status as being more compelling than the advantages associated with other types of partnership arrangement.
As we established in Committee, a care trust remains in legal terms a PCT or an NHS trust. To talk about local government retaining accountability for social services is, if we are honest about it, moonshine. The accountability of a PCT or an NHS trust is to the Secretary of State. That situation will not and cannot change when it becomes a care trust. To that the Minister may well say that local councillors will serve on the boards of care trusts. But the councillors appointed to care trust boards will not be there strictly as representatives of their council. They will be there as appointees of the new NHS national appointments body. That, I suggest, is an ambiguous position for them to be in because, as NHS appointees, they, too, no less than any other board member, will be obliged to look to the Secretary of State as the person ultimately answerable for what the trust does.
Where does that leave local authorities? If they really are to remain ultimately accountable for the services they have delegated, I suggest that that is an invidious position for them. In effect, they will have the responsibility for the services without the influence to go with it. I wonder where that will leave the voluntary sector, which currently works so closely with local government. That relationship, which depends on a shared understanding and approach to
342
the delivery of care, could well be jeopardised once the care trust assumes the responsibility for that delivery. I do not think we can take it at all as read that a voluntary body will be able to slot into the culture and processes of care trusts, which are bound to take their lead from the culture and processes of the NHS.
These are large and substantive issues. I can see the Minister thinks that I am off-beam. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on this point. We all want to see the NHS and local government working more closely together. That is not what the debate is about. But it begs the question whether this form of collaboration has much to recommend it.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to amplify a little on what my noble friend Lord Howe said because he has raised a genuine problem which the Government must consider. Although I support the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is trying to achieve, I am not quite sure whether putting the amendments on the face of the Bill will solve the problem.
A willing partnership will be difficult enough for local government, with its accountability to its electors. But an unwilling partnership will be even more difficult. One can think of numerous occasions when there will be a conflict of interest. The local government representatives may well say that they have consulted on the matter with their councillor colleagues back at the shop and they do not like the idea at all. What will happen then? Will nothing happen, or will the NHS representatives prevail because of the ultimate accountability to the Secretary of State? There could be real trouble. These are not party political points at all. They are pragmatic points about the difference between being an elected councillor and someone appointed by the Secretary of State.
On the question of equitable numbers, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, can tell us what he means by that. We need to be clear if we are to support him. Does he mean numbers in proportion to the responsibilities of the local authority and what proportion they add up to in relation to the National Health Service responsibilities; or does he mean 50:50? I do not think that that will go down very well with the elected members if it is not seen by them to reflect the extent of their accountability. Unless something can be done about it, I do not like the feeling of what it will be like to be in the shoes of local government representatives in those circumstances. But I do not quite see what can be done.
I wonder whether these forced partnerships are a viable proposition. I know that the noble Lord is seeking to make them better. Local government councillors feel very strongly about this issue. They have written to us to say so.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on this series of amendments and to raise one or two new issues and

343
one or two on which we touched during previous debates. One of my main reasons for wishing to do so is the lead story yesterday in the Guardian. It came as a big surprise to some of us to see the proposals coming down the line for PCTs and regional health authorities. By the response that the Minister gave to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on Tuesday, I take it that it might have been something of a surprise to him as well. That leads me conveniently to a question—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if the noble Baroness reads carefully in Hansard what I said on that very issue, she will see that I pointed out to the noble Earl that there had been a continual process of reducing the number of health authorities and that that would have to be taken into account if one wanted to make the patient council, which is at the level of the health authority, the prime body to take account of the public interest. Unfortunately, it was far too subtle for the House to understand what I was saying.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks about our subtlety and for that clarification. I shall read again with greater care what he said on Tuesday. However, I do not think that I am entirely wrong in my view.
The issue I want to raise has been lurking throughout our debates. Given that Section 31 partnerships exist and, as the Minister said during our discussions in Committee, are beginning to work well, why is this legislation necessary? Why are care trusts necessary? I raise that question in the context of the article printed yesterday because those of us who study these matters closely are asking a further legitimate question here: if these structures are not necessary now, why are they being put in place and what is coming down the line that we do not yet know about—although perhaps the Guardian does?
I shall put forward a second reason for supporting and promoting these amendments—the National Service Framework for Older People. The Minister knows only too well how anxious I was to be able to read that document. It was a most enjoyable read over the Easter holiday. As I said during our debates in Committee, a substantial feeling persists that what is in this Bill represents a significant shift in emphasis from social care to healthcare. Although the National Service Framework for Older People, seeks to produce a service framework for both medical and social care, it is a heavily medical document. I am sure that the Minister will respond by using his favourite word: balance. I anticipate that he may say that fairer sister care services may well redress the balance here. However, in Committee we discussed the fact that the Government's health and social care programme is a jigsaw and only piece by piece is the picture being made known. At the moment, there appears to be a very considerable shift towards a medical model of old age. That is why some of us are particularly interested in the tight question of governance arrangements.
To put this in a slightly different way, a great many people quite rightly believe that we should take a holistic view of health. When such a view is taken,
344
issues such as housing and transport become extremely important. Concerns have been expressed that, as we move more and more towards care trusts based in medical establishments, the more we shall move away from the expertise which already exists in local government of taking a holistic approach to health issues. It is with those concerns in mind that the amendments have been tabled.
Perhaps I may respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. She is quite correct to point out that the English is perhaps not absolutely right. What we mean is that we seek here a 50/50 split because we regard that as a fair distribution in terms of governance and responsibility. That may not reflect the distribution of work in terms of what a care trust will have to do, but in terms of strict responsibility it seems to me that that is the basis on which partnerships should be built. I therefore support the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, but I was a little disappointed by some of the negative remarks that have been made about a move that I believe to be enormously progressive and one that will undoubtedly help the developing partnership between the NHS and local government. It is worth making the point that the Health Act partnership arrangements themselves were a good step down the road towards real partnership. We believe that care trusts will enable a corporate board to take charge of these activities, albeit that they will be duly accountable both to the Secretary of State and to the local authority. That is a way of ensuring good leadership, ownership and the capability to drive forward many of these partnership arrangements.
Although the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made what I might call an uncharacteristically bleak analysis of care trusts, the significant fact is that already we have received 20 expressions of interest. He will recall the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Smith, who is the leader of a local authority, putting forward the reasons why local authorities are enthusiastic about taking part in the development of care trusts.
However, I wish to make it clear that the clause before us is not concerned only with ensuring that social services are brought into an NHS orbit. That is not what this is about; it concerns equally the drive to bring the influence of social services into the National Health Service. To that end, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that it is not a back-door attempt, as I think she implied, to submerge a social model with a medical care model. This is a genuine partnership.
One way in which we shall ensure that that is what happens was the decision reached by the newly installed chief executive of the National Health Service. That ensures that the boundaries of social services inspectorate regional offices are brought together with the regional offices of the NHS Executive to allow the Executive to benefit from the experience of social services officers at a senior level.

345
So far as concerns the issue of the voluntary sector, perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I believe that if he had raised that matter some 10 to 15 years ago, I would have understood why he had done so. At that stage, aside from the enormous amount of voluntary activity that takes place-within the NHS, relationships with voluntary organisations were under-developed. However, since then we have seen a great deal of development in this area. Health authorities are thoroughly used to working with and relating to voluntary organisations. I have no doubt whatever that care trusts in particular will put in place mechanisms that will ensure that voluntary organisations are fully involved and taken on board. I have no hesitation in saying that.
I should like to make a final point before I turn to the detail of the amendments. I stress that these are voluntary partnerships. Other than the directed partnerships, which we shall address in later amendments, they will come about only when local authorities and the NHS wish them to do so. I believe that a voluntary partnership means that consent will be gladly given both by a local authority and by the NHS. Surely those partners will not give their consent and support to a care trust unless it can help them to deliver better services.
I agree absolutely that the key to securing confidence will be local agreement on the governance and accountability arrangements for the care trust. It would be hard for me to disagree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his introduction to this debate. Of course complex issues are involved here, but we are working closely with the LGA and other stakeholders on the details and we wish to continue to work with them to develop the guidance and the regulations that will be needed to flesh out the provisions of the Bill.
I have already said—indeed, other noble Lords have remarked on this—that the care trust will be accountable both to the Secretary of State for its health functions and to the local authority for the delivery of those local authority functions delegated to it. That has to be meaningful accountability and thus robust arrangements will need to be agreed between the local partners for the discharge of this accountability. Local agreements will need to cover the extent to which the care trust board can make policy decisions when, for example, it needs to seek the local authority's consent and how the ongoing performance monitoring arrangements will be handled. Some decisions will remain with the local authority, such as charging policy and local authority budget setting, and the care trust will need some way of feeding in its views on these issues to the authority.
Clearly the governance arrangements are crucial to securing the confidence of the local partners. It is acknowledged that care trusts will be health bodies, but local authorities will nominate members for the board. Those local authority-nominated members will be full board members of the care trust and, for that reason, will be subject to appropriate probity checks
346
by the NHS Appointments Commission. If a nominee fails those checks, the local authority will be expected to put forward an alternative candidate.
The question of numbers was originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I took to heart the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. The number of local authority nominees on a care trust board should reflect the services that the care trust will deliver. This will be for local agreement. We want to see arrangements developed that match the needs of the organisation and the local community. We are not looking for a "one size fits all" care trust; we are looking for a framework within which local partners can agree and propose locally negotiated arrangements, with the numbers of non-executive and executive officers being determined within the context of that framework.
Many of these matters are, of course, detailed and complex. I believe that they are best dealt with in regulations and directions. Much will be for local agreement, and, of course, we have a great deal of experience from the 45 partnerships already in existence.
The overriding principle is clear within the legislation. Care trusts will be voluntary partnerships and will simply not go ahead unless accountability and governance arrangements are right. Where it is right, I believe that care trusts, with the corporate leadership that they will be able to give, will make an impressive impact on the development of partnerships in the future.
It is worth while restating what I have said at every stage during the progress of the Bill: the relationship between the NHS and local government has improved enormously in recent years. The development of care trusts is surely a visible indication of our confidence in ensuring that that partnership goes further still.
5 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very up-beat presentation. I introduced the amendments in a positive spirit, and I must confess that I feel rather more positive about the approach to governance than I did before the Minister stood up. The detailed assurances that we on these Benches anticipated are not quite there in their full glory, but there is quite a lot in what the Minister said.
The Minister gave assurances that this is not simply a way of imposing a medical care model to override a social care model; that it is a genuine partnership; and that there will be good working relationships with voluntary organisations and the voluntary sector. The Minister said that competence in the governance of care trusts will clearly be vital, and gave an assurance that on-going work is taking place with the LG.A and other stakeholders in terms of ensuring that there is meaningful accountability. He gave assurances about the robust arrangements for when decisions can be made by the care trust itself and when the consent of the partner bodies will be needed. In particular, his assurance about charging policy remaining with the local authority is very valuable.

347
As to the way in which nominations are made and the probity checks by the appointments commission, I very much hope that the Minister was saying that it is the intention that the local authority will nominate the members it believes to be appropriate and that the appointments commission will vet them purely as probity checks; that there will not be an issue of rejection on any ground other than probity.
What the Minister said about the number of local authority nominees was valuable. He said that this is not a "one size fits all" issue but is very much a matter of negotiation. He also said, essentially, that the establishment of care trusts would not go ahead until the governance arrangements were right.
There was clearly a lot in what the Minister said. We shall examine the record very carefully to make sure that we do have the assurances that we feel are appropriate. If not, we shall return to this matter at a future stage of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 39 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Care Trusts where directed partnership arrangements]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 59, line 14, leave out "is not exercising any of its functions adequately" and insert "has failed significantly in the exercise of any of its functions"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not believe that I was alone in being at least as disquieted by this clause following our Committee debates as I was before they began. For that reason, I rise to move Amendment No. 41 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 42A.
In doing so, I return to the worries that I expressed in Committee about the language of this clause and the procedural looseness that it allows. I was grateful for the Minister's assurance on that occasion that there was no intention on his part or that of his ministerial colleagues to use the powers in this clause lightly or frequently. However, if that is to be so—as we sincerely trust it is—we are left, nevertheless, with some unanswered questions. Why does the wording of the clause specifically allow for, what I interpret as, a low threshold of failure as the entree to the exercise of the power?
Subsection (1)(a) repeats the wording in Clause 21, to which I drew the attention of the House on Tuesday. It states that one of the prior conditions for the use of the power of direction is that the relevant authority must be of the opinion that an NHS trust, a PCT or a local authority,
"is not exercising any of its functions adequately".
On the previous occasion, I challenged the Minister on the meaning of the word "adequately". He replied that, in his judgment, the word "inadequate"
348
represented a fairly serious allegation and meant that services are failing. My view is that that interpretation is not self-evident. The kind of failure we are talking about could be no more than a difficulty over a single aspect of an individual service.
More tellingly though, the judgment of inadequacy need rest only on the subjective opinion of the Secretary of State which, as the clause stands, he does not have to justify to anyone. Once again, I return to a point I made earlier about intervention from Whitehall. Forced intervention from the centre is, by its nature, draconian. In this case it would constitute a direct interference not only in local NHS management but also in local democracy.
Ministers are right not to want to use such a power lightly. I question whether the power should be at their disposal in the first place. But, if it is, then, at the very least, let us be clear on the face of the Bill about the circumstances of its use. Let us say unequivocally that there must be significant failure in the way that services are being delivered; that those who may be affected by the exercise of the power of direction should have an opportunity to make their views known in advance and should be fully consulted. It should not be enough for a Secretary of State to rely on a one-sided view of a few departmental officials, however conscientious those officials may be.
I retain the vestige of a hope that the Minister will prefer the wording of my Amendment No. 41 to the wording contained in the Bill, not only for the reasons I have given but also because I believe that it more faithfully reflects what Ministers have said is their intention. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise, briefly, to support the amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He has put the pertinent points very succinctly. I may well wish to develop the points he has made on clause stand part, but I certainly believe that these amendments, if agreed to, would be a major improvement to the clause, which is, by its very nature, unsatisfactory because of the compulsion inherent in it. If there was a threshold such as the one proposed by the noble Earl, that would have a major impact on improving it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we return to the point that the situation is different when one is dealing with people who have been elected. The clause is vaguely worded. The opinion of the Secretary of State will be just that—an opinion; that is stated on the face of the Bill. It needs to be clear what is causing the Secretary of State to punish elected people by making them change the way in which they are working. They will see it like that. I do not believe that the noble Lord has ever been an elected person. He may not realise quite how hot the blood is, how heated people become, when they are told what to do by other elected people, albeit members of the government of the day. That point should be taken to heart.
My concern is that this provision simply will not work. On occasions people will take a matter to court. What will the court do? It will have great difficulty in

349
sorting this out. The wording proposed by my noble friend would make the matter clear and lay down the criteria. Was the body failing, or was it not? The Government ought to listen to this proposal. They do not seem to be listening at all during the passage of this Bill. This is one point that they might listen to.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was interested in the Minister's earlier remarks on the whole question of care trusts: he said that they needed to be voluntary; there needed to be enormous commitment; there needed to be joint views on the culture of both organisations; and there had to be joint funding. For those marriages to work, there has to be a good deal of love between the two organisations. Here, the situation is completely different.
The Minister will know of the huge success of the PMS pilots. They have been successful because they were voluntary; people wanted to take part. We should learn lessons from that. As the Minister is aware, I have been in all tiers of the health service, and I have been an elected member of a local authority in all tiers. Indeed, some of my experiences brought some tears! I am very conscious of the fact that, as my noble friend said, it does not matter how conscientious Whitehall officials are, they are a long way away from the patch. Regional offices are quite a long way away from the patch. Health authorities can be somewhat remote—and given the Secretary of State's plans for merging health authorities, they will become even more remote. If these proposals go through, there will be an enormous opportunity for a great deal of rumour and misrepresentation of what is going on—with disastrous results.
I strongly support the views of my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Howe on the question of democracy. The care trusts will not be operated on a shoestring; they will cost money. As a council tax payer, I vote for members of local government and I expect them to carry out to some extent the wishes I have expressed on the ballot paper. As a council tax payer, I may be landed with quite a large bill; and those wishes can then be overridden by some transient Secretary of State introducing proposals that I know my local councillors feel are unworkable. This is dangerous territory. I should like the Government at least to accept the amendments, or to consider some of this aspect of care trusts. But, as the noble Lord knows, I strongly support the principle of care trusts.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this proposal takes us back in part to our debates on Clause 21. I want to make it clear that we are not talking about a low threshold of failure; nor would there be any intent to use this power lightly or frequently.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was a little unfair when she said that the Government had not been listening throughout the stages of the Bill either
350
in this House or in another place. Judging by the number of amendments that have been made to the Bill, we have done a great deal of listening.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I note that after all the discussion we have had the Marshalled List does not contain a single government amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, usually one is applauded for not bringing government amendments to this House. Having brought forward about 150 during the passage of the previous NHS Bill, I should have thought that your Lordships might commend me on not doing so now. There has been a good deal of discussion between noble Lords. In Committee there were at least two amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which the Government were happy to accept. I believe that we have shown flexibility.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, of course, love is a factor in the voluntary care trust and partnership arrangements. I agree that they will work best when people really want them to happen and want to make them work. However, it is important that there is what may be described as a reserve power for situations where partnership arrangements are not working well and where the sufferers are the people who are receiving those services.
The question is what we mean by "inadequate". "Inadequate" means that services are failing. Such failure will be identified through the normal mechanisms that we already have in place to identify this: inspections, reviews, joint reviews, as well as the normal monitoring and performance management processes in local government and in the NHS. We have in place agreements about how to act when an inspection or a review has identified weaknesses in services. Once the view of the inspection report has been confirmed, an action plan is agreed, and then appropriate monitoring processes are put in place which can measure whether improvements are being made. If they are not, in the case of social services a direction can be made on an authority, identifying the statutory duties to be met. In the case of the NHS, although the trigger mechanisms may be different, the response—the production of a recovery plan—is similar.
The Bill provides, in what I believe will be infrequent cases, a separate opportunity to try to put right problems where there are shortcomings because there is a failure to make partnership work. Perhaps I may give examples of the kind of situations in which the Secretary of State might consider using this power. It will be considered, first, where inspection of a local authority has demonstrated an inadequate service with very poor responses to requests for assessment; where there is a poor link between cost and the quality of services commissioned; where case files indicate a lack of good communication or agreement reached with the user; where there is little or no risk assessment of people being maintained in the community; where there is a lack of choice in services and an

351
inappropriate use of residential services. This could lead to a directed partnership of integrated provision and lead commissioning.
Another example might be in relation to the NHS, where there has been continuing failure by an NHS trust to develop appropriate services for client groups, which leads to poor access, limited user availability, poor quality in terms of waiting times and standards of services. Another example might be services which are at the interface between health and social care and where separate funding for the range of services constantly creates blockages in the system; so users might receive an unco-ordinated service and be either left at risk in their own home without sufficient support or be unable to be discharged from hospital. The situation might be resolved by having a pooled fund hosted by one of the agencies to ensure the appropriate flexibility.
I want to make it clear that we are not using the word "inadequate" lightly; nor do I believe that we should have a culture either in the NHS or in social services where the word "inadequate" is excused or is taken lightly. We should not have inadequate services.
I give the assurance again that the powers in this clause will not be used lightly or frequently. I see this as a power of last resort, to be used where delegating a function to another body would make a positive change and allow staff and management to start again on a new lease of life. Although noble Lords have used the example of a local authority having to delegate services into a directed partnership, I should stress that this applies as much to the NHS as it does to local government.
I turn to the amendments regarding the consultation arrangements. Of course I agree that that is a most important point. If we are to achieve the kinds of benefits that can deliver for service users, it is obvious that we need robust and inclusive consultation arrangements. In fact, I suggest that that is particularly important where we are talking about services that have been shown to be inadequate. I should like to assure noble Lords that consultation arrangements will be developed that provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to take part in such proposals.
Where services are clearly failing, action might have to be taken swiftly, but that must not be at the expense of proper consultation. However, in those circumstances, it might have to be streamlined. I expect the number and range of stakeholders with an interest in care trusts to be significant. In addition to statutory and voluntary bodies, patients' councils and patients' forums, we must also listen to the views of healthcare professionals, social care professionals, employees, carers, patients and other providers. In the Bill, we have put in place a regulatory power that will cover a number of issues, ensuring that there is flexibility in the way that such matters are managed in response to local situations, and allowing regulations and guidance to be both specific and illustrative.
In conclusion, I should point out that we are very keen on the voluntary approach, which will apply to most of the Government's care trust partnership
352
arrangements. Such a power will be a measure of last resort in relation to a directed partnership. However, it is important for us to have this as a reserve power. At the end of the day, I believe that the word "inadequate" is sufficient for our purposes.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his well-considered reply. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The Minister reiterated his undertakings that these powers will not be used lightly. Obviously, that is welcome news. However, we differ over the semantics and the interpretation of the language. The noble Lord said that "inadequate" meant that services are failing, but he did not say to what extent and for how long. He quoted some helpful examples of what he envisaged in this context, but it seems to me that there is too much latitude for a future Secretary of State to interpret the wording as he or she might wish. I am disappointed that I have not persuaded the Minister on that point.
However, on a brighter note, I turn to the issue of consultation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her comments. I was also pleased to hear from the Minister that he understands the importance of consultation where there is any question of a directed partnership arrangement being considered. That is most welcome. We have had a useful exchange of views on these matters. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 42A not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 43:
Leave out Clause 54.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is clear from our debates on this clause, both in Committee and today, that there are many misgivings about the circumstances in which a directed care trust may be formed. Despite the debates, we still do not know precisely what the conditions are under which the Secretary of State would make an intervention. On these Benches we believe most strongly that it is important for those who will try to make a success of care trusts to have a clear understanding of the position right from the beginning.
In Committee on 22nd March (at col. 1606 of the Official Report), the Minister talked of the power being an even-handed one. He said:
"This is an even-handed power. It is not simply a question of saying to local government, 'We want to take part of your service and put it into a care trust'".
So this is very much an even-handed approach: one that recognises that, when there is a problem, there is very often a failure on both sides, but that, occasionally, it can be on one side. Those are very good sentiments.
The Minister indicated both today and in Committee that such powers will not be used extensively and that they are powers of last resort; in other words, that the clause is one tool in the general armoury which will be used sparingly. Indeed, the

353
noble Lord also confirmed that he would not be using the word "inadequate" lightly. There are quite a few phrases in this context designed to give assurance.
Similarly, both in Committee and today, the Minister described when intervention would take place: when a care trust was not delivering to a particular client group, when agencies were not working together, and so on. He also gave a number of other illustrations in that respect and told us that all would be revealed through the performance management system. But why not put some of those elements in the Bill? Compulsion is clearly not ideal in any circumstances. Voluntary arrangements work best, while compulsory arrangements start off on completely the wrong footing. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has been convincing to that effect throughout our debates. At the very least, we could have the exercise of a compulsory provision within very clear parameters.
At the end of the day, despite the reassurances given by the Minister, a great deal of the detail about exactly how care trusts will work and what powers and duties they will take over is still missing. It is extremely difficult to form a complete picture. How will this enforced relationship between health and social services work? What powers and duties will be involved? As currently constituted, the clause is enormously wide in its scope. Under its provisions, which delegate powers compulsorily, care trusts will exercise social services functions. One obvious example of the kind of function that they may take over as a result is that of setting discretionary charges for homecare services. That is an extraordinarily delicate matter; yet those issues will arise under a compulsory direction and the care trust may well be entitled to make far-reaching decisions in the area. Even more important is the extent to which the NHS and local government can effectively work together as a result of a direction coming down from on high. That puts the situation in even greater doubt.
In Committee, the Minister said:
"There is no suggestion whatsoever that this is about the taking over by the NHS of a local government service. It is about enhancing co-operation and partnership".—[Official Report, 22/3/01; col. 1607.]
That may be so, but how can a good working relationship be built by compulsion? There is nothing in the clause that gives any assurance in that respect.
As I said in Committee, I am sure that we can all accept the Minister's good intentions; but the Bill is designed to last for a considerable period of time, beyond the span of a single Minister. In practical terms, and in principle, the clause is seriously flawed. It should not remain part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has put his finger on the weaknesses of this clause which are intrinsic and, in my view, ultimately irredeemable. How can you force two parties to co-operate when not only one or both of them are failing to perform their functions properly,
354
but also when one or both are unwilling to be brought together? How can that possibly represent a recipe for success?
My noble friend Lady Noakes put it so well in Committee: if partnerships are to work at all, they need shared vision, a shared commitment and, above all, mutual trust. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also made the same point. I have yet to hear from any Minister how the Government believe that success can spring from a situation where those prerequisites are known to be absent. If we allow the clause to remain in the Bill, we are, as my noble friend said, legislating for failure. We should not do so.
Curiously enough, it was the Government who saw the folly of trying to enforce partnership arrangements on the NHS and local authorities during the passage of the Health Act 1999. That legislation introduced the concept of "partnership" and the pooling of budgets. Ministers were quite clear then that there was no question of trying to dragoon anyone into entering such an arrangement. What has changed? We have not been informed.
In Committee I pointed out that there was an inherent contradiction in the Government's position on care trusts. We have been told that Ministers see care trusts as part of a system that they like to call "earned autonomy"; in other words, care trusts are seen as constituting a reward for behaviour of which Ministers approve. Yet at the same time in Clause 54 they are seen as constituting a punishment for behaviour of which Ministers do not approve. To my mind that absurdity blows the logic of this clause out of the water.
But apart from the logic, we need to remind ourselves of what the clause would lead to. Despite what the Minister said in Committee, it gives Ministers a power to interfere with local democracy. It is in effect a power to remove a function of a democratically elected local body, take control of part of that body's budget and allocate the money in a manner that directly conflicts with the wishes of the body concerned. It is not even as if the money being allocated in this way is Department of Health money; much of it will be money generated from council tax receipts locally. I find the whole idea of this intervention offensive. It is on a different scale altogether from the normal kind of policy guidance or direction-making that the NHS has experienced in the past. In other words, we are not talking about tweaking the balance between central direction and local autonomy in the way that the Minister and I have often debated. We are talking about a step change in government centralism. The Minister needs to answer that charge before he attempts to justify the clause in any practical sense. It is not just that the case for these powers has not been made; the case against them is overwhelming.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister described this measure as a reserve power in the event of partnerships not working. However, the measure

355
appears to prescribe more partnerships. As my noble friend has just explained and as I said in Committee, partnerships work only when many pre-conditions are set. Almost by definition if one or more bodies are deemed to be failing and partnerships are not working, a successful partnership cannot exist. The clause prescribes a solution which has no relevance to the problems. There may well be problems in terms of how services work as between the NHS and local authorities, but the solution cannot be to prescribe more partnerships or to prescribe a care trust because neither of those solutions can possibly work in failure situations. The clause will simply be unworkable in practice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have listened with much interest to what has been said. Of course I agree that voluntary arrangements work best. That is the key thrust of what we are trying to do in the Bill, particularly in relation to care trusts. We want to provide opportunities for health and local government to do everything they can to improve their working relationships to ensure that integrated and high quality services are delivered to the public. However, for the sake of the public, where a partnership is not working and where the NHS and local government are not getting their act together, we must have a mechanism to enable us to do something about that. I believe that the clause allows us to do that effectively, but, as I said earlier, to do it as a last resort.
I also want to make clear that this is an even-handed power. It is not an attack on local government or social services; it is a power to direct the use of partnership arrangements. Indeed, the solution to failing services might be to direct the use of a pooled fund, to be hosted by a local authority. It might constitute some integrated provision commissioning led from a primary care trust or an NHS trust using a range of providers, but being able to bring together all the requirements of the local area, and commissioned from one point. Lead commissioning can be led by both local authorities and NHS bodies, just as the other partnership arrangements can be. There is no need for me to describe again what we mean by inadequate services and the way in which the power would be used. Even though we disagree on language, I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the power would not be undertaken lightly.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the impact of care trusts on democratically elected local authorities. Care trusts have been only one of a number of intervention options that we have wanted to be available to us. We have not regarded them as the default mechanism; they have been one of the options for directed partnership arrangements.
I shall reflect on the points that have been made tonight on care trusts as opposed to other partnership arrangements. I am prepared to consider the merits of retaining the powers to require the use of Health Act flexibilities but without the ability to compel local authorities to take the next step and enter into a care
356
trust. I propose to return at Third Reading with proposals that take account of some of the issues that have been raised tonight.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I believe that the Minister's reply contains a significant element of concession. When I read Hansard I may discover that it has a substantial element of concession. As regards compulsion relating only to Health Act flexibilities, I suspect that that could constitute a substantial change to the clause. We shall want to reflect on the points the Minister made in his helpful response. To restrict the compulsory powers to Health Act flexibilities would certainly limit the ambit of the clause in a helpful way and would make clear what is intended, as opposed to the current rather wide clause. It would make clear that the power is an option of last resort. We welcome the Minister's comments on the use of pooled funds, directed commissioning and so on. As I say, I shall consider what the Minister has said. Therefore, I do not propose to press the amendment. We shall consider the position carefully before Third Reading and perhaps have further discussions with the Minister on the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Exclusion of nursing care from community care services]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 62, line 14, leave out ''by a registered nurse"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 46. We return to one of the key issues of contention in the Bill, the definition of nursing care as it applies to residents of nursing homes who will be eligible to receive such care free of charge on the NHS.
In response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly the Government made the announcement, which was widely welcomed, that they would end the anomaly under which nursing care for people in nursing homes is means tested when to people in hospitals and in any other setting it is provided free on the NHS. However, that welcome shared on all sides of the political spectrum turned to disappointment and concern in the light of the exceedingly narrow definition of nursing care that the Government intend to adopt.
The Government's proposals as set out in this clause mean that the only nursing care that will be funded free by the NHS in a nursing home will be either nursing care that is provided directly by a registered nurse or the time that a registered nurse spends in planning, delegating and supervising care. The worry that many of us have is that this definition will be both unfair and unworkable: unfair, because what counts to most right-thinking people as nursing for many frail and elderly patients will suddenly no longer count as such; and unworkable because it ignores the way in which nursing care is delivered to people in nursing homes. In practice, much essential care which can only

357
reasonably be described as nursing care is delivered by healthcare assistants working under the supervision and delegation of a registered nurse.
The Bill would mean that nursing would no longer be defined in terms of the care given but of the care giver. I suggest that that approach will lead to consequences which by any standards are perverse. No registered nurse in a nursing home will wish to delegate a task to a healthcare assistant knowing that this will involve the patient paying for the care that he or she receives. Yet without such delegation life will become impossible. Nurses will be placed under huge pressure trying to allocate their time in a way that will do least financial damage. As I said in Committee, the effect will be to place a cap on the amount of nursing care that can be delivered—a cap based not on people's needs but on the availability of registered nurses.
In Committee, the Minister sought to assure us that it will not be like this. I hope that I paraphrase the noble Lord accurately. He said that once a person has been assessed as needing the care of a registered nurse, the NHS would arrange for the registered nursing input to be provided in the nursing home. Furthermore, there would be a contract between the NHS and the nursing home under which the level of nursing care received would be monitored. The Minister sought to stress that the definition of nursing needed to be clear-cut, as the Government have made it, because any other definitions leaves blurred edges. Indeed, he went so far as to say that the Government's definition is the only definition that will be capable of practical implementation.
The only problem with the Minister's position is that he is wrong on the practicalities. As he rightly said, the amount of nursing care that a person requires will be determined by a formal assessment. But the decision as to which of a patient's care needs must be provided by a registered nurse and which by other staff will depend often not on a clear-cut, tick-in-the-box approach but on a wide range of factors, including the overall skill mix of the team, the stability and predictability of the patient's condition and, not least, the patient's psychological and emotional state. Those can vary from day to day and even from hour to hour. What is important is that the patient's needs are adequately identified and met.
The Royal College of Nursing helpfully produced a number of case studies of real people to illustrate the difficulty of going down the Government's line. One concerns Mrs A, who is 74 years old and in the advanced stages of motor neurone disease. She has poor mobility and is fed through a tube. She is frequently mentally distressed and withdrawn. She cannot communicate by speaking. She finds decision making difficult. She is dependent on others to meet her hygiene needs. The RCN says that much of Mrs A's care, which is round the clock, is currently delivered by the team as a whole. It is extremely hard to distinguish the care which needs to be delivered by a registered nurse from the care which can safely and sensibly be delivered by a healthcare assistant acting alone. Many aspects of the care can be delivered by
358
healthcare assistants, but only with supervisory assistance or under directed assistance from registered nurses.
The example of Mrs A is not unusual. Other case studies show that when a patient's condition varies daily, as many do, the key factor is whether in the particular circumstances of the day the registered nurse can have complete confidence that the healthcare assistant knows how to carry out the task in hand. The level of registered nursing input will vary. Ultimately, it is the registered nurse who is accountable not only for the care plans but also for all the care given, including that delivered by the healthcare assistant.
This is not a matter—as the Minister suggested in Committee—of opening the floodgates so as to make all personal care as well as nursing care free of charge in nursing homes. Nor, I believe, do the amendments I have tabled have that effect. Their purpose is to widen to a relatively modest extent the definition of nursing care in a way that will obviate the vast bulk of the practical difficulties to which I believe the Government's definition will give rise. They are intended to address the situation in the real world. Indeed, there has to be the blurring at the edges to which the Minister referred if we are to achieve something that is workable.
I agree with the Minister that this is a genuine debate involving difficult decisions. I agree that there is no perfect answer. I acknowledge to the noble Lord. Lord Lipsey, that there will be problems of definition wherever the line is eventually drawn. But the question is: what should come first? Should we base our approach on the way that nursing care is delivered to real individuals; or should we sign up to a definition that is essentially artificial in that it owes its origins to budgetary limitations in the Department of Health? I know which I choose. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I support the eloquent summary by the noble Earl of the many debates on the issue. I focus on two issues: first, why we need a definition of nursing care; and, secondly, why an amendment is needed to the clause.
In Committee, noble Lords pointed out that the clause as drafted merely removes the responsibility of the social services department to purchase from the NHS nursing care for people in nursing homes. The Minister did not like the amendment to buy nursing care moved by these Benches, saying,
"It does not define the care which the NHS will arrange as that is already provided for in the NHS Act 1977 which imposes on the Secretary of State a duty to provide health services including nursing".
He continued:
"We shall set out in directions how the NHS would fulfil its duty in respect of nursing home residents".
Tellingly, he said:
"The NHS has a duty to provide healthcare to any member of the public as is reasonably required".—[Official Report, 23/3/01: cols. 1644–47.]

359
If there is already a requirement to provide nursing care, why is this clause needed?
Many noble Lords have concerns about how the provision will be implemented and the division of responsibilities between local authorities and the NHS. The whole debate is about trying to establish who is responsible for what in the long-term care of older people. The debate has to result in a definition that will enable individuals to know where they stand. Those in care trusts, in different parts of the NHS and in local authorities also need to understand fully what is and is not their responsibility.
If that clarity is not provided, many of the reforms in the Bill, such as those for intermediate care, which have been welcomed, will do nothing to overcome the problems that people currently experience. When an older person has a problem such as a stroke, there are four immediate questions to which they need an answer: What do I need? What sources of help are available? Where do I find them? What has to be paid for? Those are not new questions. The Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly set out to answer them and the Bill is supposed to deal with them.
Throughout our debates we have returned time and again to the definition of nursing care. A definition is essential, not just for this part of the Bill, but for all the other structures that the Government are proposing. In another place, Mr Hutton, the Minister, asked who could define what is nursing care other than a nurse. The amendments would provide a definition of nursing care. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about what is nursing and what is nursing care for older people. Much of nursing care in the medicine of old age is not high-tech, acute intervention, which is increasingly the focus of nurses and nurse practitioners. It is the repetition of well documented tasks that need to be performed over and over again. That is not personal care, but nursing care as we all understand it.
I have said in previous debates not only that we need a definition of nursing care, but that there will be one. Whether we provide it or the Law Lords provide it, there will eventually be a definition of nursing care. Clarity about what nursing care is will be vital not just for the care of older people, but to support many of the progressive policies elsewhere in the Bill and to make the partnerships that the Minister talked about work in innovative ways. I hope that your Lordships will support the amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment No. 45, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 44 and 46. Currently, although the National Health Service should provide services to residential care homes in the same way as it would to a person living in their own home, that is not always the case. The guidance for nursing homes specifies only that,
"specialist medical or nursing equipment"
360
should be provided and specifically states that incontinence supplies are not included and should be included in the fees of the nursing home. Thus there is an anomaly that incontinence pads, which are free in other settings, have to be paid for if the user is in a nursing home. That raises a number of issues about continence supplies.
If continence supplies are added to the general fee level of the home, residents who do not have any incontinence problems will have to meet the costs of those who do. Occasionally—although less frequently now—homes charge individuals separately, which can considerably increase the costs for those funding themselves. Local authorities are purchasing items that are provided by the National Health Service in other settings. It is not unknown for residents to be charged for their incontinence pads from their personal expenses allowance if they are funded by the local authority. Those in receipt of preserved rights in particular more frequently pay for their own incontinence pads using money for personal expenses. Because the nursing home does not purchase supplies for individuals, VAT is charged, whereas there is no longer VAT for those supplies in other settings. That extra cost is borne either by the local authority or by the individual resident.
Although incontinence pads are the most frequent example of equipment not supplied in nursing homes, Age Concern England has come across other equipment that has not been supplied by the National Health Service on the grounds that the nursing home should supply it as part of their general nursing responsibilities. That includes equipment such as special beds for pressure sores and feeding tubes. Age Concern England believes that any equipment that would normally be available via the National Health Service should be provided in all settings.
It is often the small things in life that cause the greatest concern and frustration to the individual. For the many people who have to contend with double incontinence, having an adequate supply of paper sheets and pads makes life easier for the individual and the carers and helps to prevent pressure sores. It is also cost-effective to the National Health Service in the long run.
I discussed the amendment with someone I met at a dinner yesterday, who said, "Lord Hunt should be understanding and helpful over this problem". I look forward to the Minister's reply. If it is not satisfactory, I shall bring Amendment No. 45 back on Third Reading.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 46, which are also in this group, are also very important. There will be confusion and fear in nursing homes, with staff not knowing who should do what to which patients.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 44 and 46. I apologise to the House for the fact that, for personal reasons, I have not been present for the Bill's previous stages, but I have read the Hansard reports and noted the eloquence with which reservations about the Government's

361
definition of nursing care have been made. After listening to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, today, I felt that there was no need for anyone to say anything more. However, I believe that the Government's definition of nursing care is too narrow by half. I adhere to the views expressed by the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly.
It is very difficult to find an adequate definition of nursing care. When I was Professor of Nursing at the University of Manchester, our introductory undergraduate programme included a series called, "The Nature of Nursing", in which we considered various definitions of nursing care given in different cultures. In our masters degree programme, we spent a whole year looking at theories and models of clinical nursing and tried to test out in clinical practice how effective different definitions and models of nursing care were and how they affected the quality of care.
Defining nursing care by the person who gives it is inadequate. One patient may receive nursing care from a registered nurse, but exactly the same kind of nursing care can be given by a care assistant. I know of no definition of "nursing" that would exclude such basic, essential nursing care tasks as bathing, feeding, dressing, toileting, comforting and communicating, changing dressings, changing incontinence pads, checking for pressure sores and assisting with moving.
In future, if the Bill goes through as it stands, for some people some of those things will be free; other patients will be charged for them. That brings me to my main question of disquiet. How we define "nursing care" involves a matter of social justice. I believe that the present definition is inequitable and militates against the adequate care of frail, elderly, physically and mentally disabled people.
6 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, perhaps I may begin, unusually, on a consensual point. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the news today that Sir Stewart Sutherland, the chairman of the Royal Commission, whose report has been so central to our debate this afternoon, is to join the House. We shall be glad of his wise contributions on subjects such as higher education on which he has great expertise and shall miss the fact that he has not been present for all the debates on which he could have contributed so much.
Had I been Sir Stewart Sutherland—thank God I was not!—and had I shared his views, which, as noble Lords know, I do not, what would I have put in the recommendations of the Royal Commission? I would not have recommended free personal care. It is rather easy to show free care for all—as I like to call it, and rightly so—to be extraordinarily generous. I would have recommended free nursing care, such as the Government are introducing. I would then have built on that notion by extending the definition of "nursing care" so that more and more people were covered by it.
I heard the noble Earl, Lord Howe, say that he was not opening the floodgates. However, having examined this definition carefully, I have no doubt
362
that it is opening the floodgates and that, under that definition, practically everything that in the Royal Commission's recommendations would have been called "free personal care" would end up as free nursing care. First, it would be introduced in nursing homes. The glaring anomaly would then arise that the same services were not being provided for people in residential homes, and, as a matter of inexorable knowledge, it would have to be extended to them. We would then find ourselves returning to the problem that has always existed in relation to free nursing care—that is, a huge addition to public expenditure.
Today, we have heard the most articulate, moving and brilliant speeches in favour of free nursing care. But no one has put a cost on it. No one has said what the opportunity costs would be. We would all rather have a Rolls-Royce than a Mini, but there is not much point in having a Rolls-Royce rather than a Mini if one has no petrol to put in it.
The truth is that this definition, as moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would rapidly build up to the same cost as would be incurred under the Royal Commission's recommendation. We are talking of £1.2 billion at the least in year one, rising inexorably to between 12 and 20 times that amount—that is, approaching half the current National Health Service budget—by the middle of the next century. Every penny of that money would go to better-off people, or, rather, their heirs, and not one penny would go towards increasing services.
I do not often think of a new argument in this field because I have been spouting about it for so long. However, I want to bring in one new point. Let us consider the practical consequence of the amendment being accepted. As I have argued, and as I have found through attending conferences around the country, this is the matter that most strikes a chord. The most urgent need for more spending in this field is in the area of improving the status, training and wages of care assistants. They do the bulk of the caring. They are grossly inadequately paid, and often they are the wrong kind of people doing the wrong kind of job. If there were more money available, that is where I would put it.
However, if care assistants are now to be allocated the tasks carried out by registered nurses, and if that then qualifies their work as being provided free, as recommended by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, then every pound, and not perhaps 35p to 40p as is now the case, added to the wage of a registered care worker will fall fully on to the Exchequer. Therefore, as a consequence of this amendment, we shall continue to have bad care assistants and bad care. The amendment is conceived to be helpful. In practice, its effect would be malign in the most important sense of all— it would lead to worse and not better care for elderly people. That is why I strongly oppose it.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment spoken to so ably by my good and longstanding friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to which I very much hope there will be a helpful ministerial response.

363
Like the noble Baroness, what I find especially disturbing about present arrangements is that many residents in nursing homes are now charged for their incontinence pads, if they are funded by the local authority, from their personal expenses allowance, as if they were opting for luxury goods.
Incontinence pads are crucially important to those who need and have to use them. So, too, are gastro-nasal feed tubes and special beds for the avoidance of pressure sores; and it is surely wrong that needful people should be made to pay for medical necessities simply because they are in a nursing or care home. This effectively takes the "N" out of NHS, and the noble Baroness's initiative in tabling her amendment will very likely be supported by people of all political persuasions outside this House.
I pay tribute also this evening to Age Concern for its humane endeavours in promoting this important amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I want to highlight briefly just one aspect of this matter because I believe that I covered the whole issue very fully in Committee. I start by thanking the Royal College of Nursing for its six case studies. I found them most illuminating. This is not a matter of theory; it concerns real people receiving real care. I believe that those studies came over extremely well.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, put forward a reservation. He believed that, because of the proposals put forward by the Government in their definition of nursing, there was a danger that a perverse incentive would arise and that people would choose to use qualified registered nurses rather than healthcare assistants because they would receive their nursing for free. That worries me considerably and I believe that it is a very strong argument.
We have approximately 630,000 registered nurses and 22,000 vacancies. Approximately 30,000 foreign nurses are believed to work in the NHS. However, I consider it to be an even more shattering statistic that those nurses make up one-quarter of the working population of London nurses. Therefore, we have the vision of nurse managers circling the world trying to recruit nurses to come and work here.
Of course, to some extent there has been a tradition of Australian and New Zealand nurses coming to work here. They come for a year or two and, hopefully, they return enriched by their British experiences. However, what worries me terribly is the fact that we recruit nurses from third world countries. I have been to South Africa and have seen the state of their health services. I know how very short they are of clinical staff. They have to recruit their doctors from Cuba. They need nurses and midwives. At present, we employ approximately 1,460 nurses from South Africa alone, together with those from the Philippines and all the other countries.
Therefore, we are very short of nurses, and we should use them appropriately. I believe that the definition that the Government are putting forward
364
does produce a perverse incentive, and that concerns me very much. It will not only be unfair, as my noble friend Lord Howe said; it will affect the quality of nursing throughout the service. We have a duty in this country to use this scarce resource to the best of our ability. The Government's definition works against that.
I do not underestimate the difficulties. Successive governments have tried to manage this difficult issue of who pays for what in long-term care. We got round the matter by muddling through and obfuscating some of the issues. I commend the Government for at least attempting to introduce some clarity. However, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, who was the first nurse to occupy a chair of nursing in this country—she did so in Manchester. The legacy of her tenure there still shows through. She has made an amazing contribution. We should listen to people such as the noble Baroness—she really knows the subject.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was absolutely right to say that if we do not define the matter, the Law Lords will do so. We in this House have to be very respectful of the Law Lords but it would be better if those with knowledge of the subject made the definition. That would prevent us from having to go through the formality of court cases.
Finally, I turn to the perverse incentive argument. When I was much more closely involved with the health service than I am now, I had to go through complaints about all sorts of different matters in hospitals and in the community. I noticed that those complaints always ended with the sentence, "And the nurses were wonderful". I have to say that today that phrase is less commonly used. That is not the fault of the staff—they are under huge pressure. I have seen them working on wards when they should have been away from the wards enjoying their free time. They looked tired, exhausted and fed up. They were fed up not because of the hard work that they have to do but because they were not doing the job for which they were trained. They are very frustrated and cannot do good-quality work. If we use them inappropriately, that situation will become even worse.
I say to the Minister, "Good try, but try again". We must ensure that the perverse incentive does not appear in the Bill.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I had considered tabling an amendment on this issue. I support Amendment No. 45, which was tabled by my noble friend Lady Masham and to which I added my name, and I remain sympathetic to Amendments Nos. 44 and 46, which were tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, nurses can best define what nurses do. I am unhappy about the position that the Government have adopted towards older people. Many noble Lords, including the Minister, will be aware that older people who need long-term care tend to suffer from multiple pathologies. They therefore have varied and multiple healthcare needs.

365
Many registered nurses fulfil increasing numbers of roles that were once the prerogative of doctors. The fact that some of the caring tasks that they used to provide will now be provided by other care staff is surely irrelevant if they are meeting a healthcare need.
The Bill's provisions on nursing care do not currently go far enough. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said in Committee that perhaps we could improve the Bill after Royal Assent. I should prefer to have clarity now. I am concerned that the Bill is so tightly defined that it will not take into account the work that nurses and care staff who work under nurses already do and will inevitably continue to do. It will not allow any flexibility. That is extremely worrying because we know that it is essential for the NHS to fulfil its duties to provide healthcare as reasonably required for any individual, wherever he or she is. The Minister confirmed that in Committee, which very much encouraged me.
This subject goes wider than the nursing provisions that are encompassed in the Bill. The provision must include services such as physiotherapy and chiropody and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, it must involve incontinence pads, which are central to the dignity of older people. I do not understand why the Government are not prepared to make it clear that such obvious health equipment must be paid for and supplied to everyone who needs it, wherever they are. The NHS must fulfil its duty to older people and others who need its services, wherever they are. We must ensure that the Bill takes their needs fully into account.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I make a plea from these Benches to the Minister to look sympathetically at these amendments. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey knows, I disagree profoundly with his comments on personal care and nursing care. The amendments have moved beyond simply the provision of personal care and attempt to define what can be given under the supervision of a registered nurse.
Several noble Lords who have spoken in this debate know a great deal more about the services than I do. I am not a nurse, although my step-daughter is—she is currently a health visitor. Most of the nurses whom I know strongly agree with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. We should listen to the voices of experience in this regard. The proposal is to an extent an attempt to come to terms with the Government's position. The proposal with regard to full personal care attempts to define what can be given under the supervision of a registered nurse.
The importance of free care has been stressed in this debate. Elderly people who have paid tax and national insurance all their working life do not regard the services that are provided as being free; they believe that they have paid all of their working lives for their care. They believe that when they need help and care—when they are old and disabled—it should be provided. All care is really a contract between the generations.
366
There is a strong case for supporting the amendments. If the wording is not acceptable to the Minister, he should listen carefully to what has been said and perhaps present alternative wording on Third Reading. The amendments should not be rejected out of hand and I hope that the Minister will given them sympathetic consideration.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, we discussed this matter at some length in Committee—the definition of nursing care is important. We are now considering amendments whose terms are specific. Although we are considering a group of amendments, those amendments are quite different. The amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, deals with the definition of nursing care. Amendment No. 45, which appears in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raises a specific point.
I shall be brief but I want to separate out the issues. In our early discussions on the definition of nursing care, there was dispute about whether we had a good definition. We had a simple definition but the question was whether it was good. Amendment No. 46 attempts to make a clear definition, particularly in its reference to care that is provided, delegated or supervised by a registered nurse. That is clear, but that definition is wider than that in the Bill. It would include most of the activities that most normal people would consider to be integral to nursing care. That is what we discussed on earlier occasions.
The amendments represent a good attempt to avoid problems of definition. I am sympathetic to that approach. I am, however, aware of our earlier debates on this matter. I wrote a summary of the Minister's contribution in Committee. That summary was very brief—it read: "Nurse—Pandora's box". We need to know whether or not the Government still take that view in relation to these amendments. I hope they do not. I hope that they will feel that it is sufficiently clear and, to that degree, likely to be acceptable.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Masham. That is not of the same order at all. It is a specific point and deals with what at the moment appears to be a complete anomaly. I cannot believe that that much money is at issue in this matter. However it seems to me to be curious that people can be charged for certain equipment—for example, incontinence pads—simply because they happen to be in a residential or nursing home. It may be that if they gave a different address—perhaps that of a hospital—they would be given the equipment free of charge.
But in any event, the principle that any equipment which would normally be available under the National Health Service should be provided by the National Health Service in all settings seems to be sound. I hope that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Masham can be accepted and I strongly support it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I confine my brief remarks to Amendments Nos. 44 and 46. In doing that, I note, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said

367
at the beginning, that there is a great desire to do something about the anomaly. There is universal support for that and that is to be welcomed.
Therefore, I am concerned that as a result of our deliberations we should neither lose nor delay an important positive change for elderly people—those who are, by definition, the most frail and vulnerable.
I understand completely the points of principle behind the amendments and the strength of view which underlies them. As chairman of Hertfordshire Health Authority, I am very well aware of the practical issues, especially as regards defining what is almost indefinable. But I recognise that however we address the matter, there are resource implications in any changes which are put forward by amendments. Whatever changes are made and whatever resources we suggest need to be added, those need to be looked at in the context of a broader debate about the range of services we provide for elderly people.
Noble Lords may recall that in Committee I mentioned that I was reviewing elderly care services in Hertfordshire. I pointed to the underdevelopment that I saw there in a range of services. For example, if more resources were available, some of the priorities in which I should be interested are preventing elderly people ending up in A&E departments because they have fallen at home; having the facilities to send out nurses and doctors, where necessary to people's homes to care for them there; to have better respite care available to elderly people so that if they need a few days before going home it is available to them; extending intermediate care facilities so that elderly people can eventually go back home; making sure that we have the right level of occupational therapy and physiotherapy services for elderly people; and a higher quality of continuing care for those within the NHS.
Noble Lords will know that across the country those words will be echoed, I suspect, in all health authorities. And so my interest is in ensuring that the debate we have is not held in isolation. That is my greatest fear. I hope that rather than preventing these measures going forward by voting against them and, therefore, the Government dismissing them for the time being, we should have a broader debate in this House about what the next priorities should be for elderly care services and have as part of that this extension.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly. My intervention on this group of amendments will be brief because I simply wish to talk about personal experience.
After my elderly mother had her first stroke, she was cared for in our home by my wife and myself. But after her second stroke, when she was no longer capable of recognising us, we were perforce required to admit her to a nursing home in Newcastle upon Tyne, a splendid nursing home where there were on the staff of that nursing home only two registered nurses—one at night and one during the day. But there were eight splendid
368
care assistants who gave her the most dedicated and wonderful service for the last two years of her life until she died at the age of 93.
Therefore, I strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, because I believe that it is important to broaden this clause in the Bill to recognise the crucial importance which, under the supervision of registered nurses, care assistants make to the care of people in such nursing homes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, suggested that my noble friend's amendment would be hugely expensive and would greatly extend what the Government intended to do. I am not sure whether or not that is the case. I have not discussed the amendment with my noble friend. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, suggested that we might hold up this measure. That is the last thing I want to do. She is right that it should not be taken out of context and all sorts of other things can be done to help in this field. But this measure is extremely important.
I believe that all noble Lords are saying that they want a clearer definition. It may be very difficult on the ground, in the nursing home, to operate the provisions of the Bill when it becomes legislation. Will it be necessary to go round with Hansard to see what the noble Lord said the Government meant by this? Even the legislation itself will not be easy to understand for the people who do the planning for patients.
Therefore, I believe that the Government must try to improve and sharpen the definition so that what they intend can be done in practice. Just to defend the wording of the Bill will not be sufficient. We are absolutely delighted that the noble Lord has seen the light on a previous amendment. That was really encouraging and we felt our lives were being made worth while. And I should like to think that our lives might be made worth while as regards this amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I give my warm support to these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady Masham which relates, as my noble friend Lord Williamson made so clear, only to equipment which would be supplied by the NHS if you were in the community.
As a paraplegic, I know only too well that you cannot skimp and save on personal care, medical supplies and, for example, incontinence equipment. I know that everyone has talked about incontinence pads but that equipment is extremely important. We know about the problems which arose when there was a hiccup or a cut-back in the community in relation to the incontinence service. People were reusing paper sheets, drying them on radiators. You end up with infections; your skin breaks down; and you may get pressure sores. If that happens, you then have to go into hospital because you cannot be looked after in a care home. Pressure sores cost the NHS millions of pounds per year.

369
Therefore, it is very important. Skimping on care or equipment leads to a need for real nursing care and much personal cost and at huge financial cost to the NHS. I hope that the Minister will have a very good think about this one.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I come to this debate as a nurse rather than with any experience of economics. There is much in this Bill which I welcome but, like the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, I find it very difficult to reconcile the concept of nursing care with the proposal that care is only nursing care when it is delivered by a registered nurse.
That stands on its head everything that I have ever understood about the nature of nursing. Indeed, if that definition were to apply in the National Health Service, I fear what would become of it. Even in the so-called good old days, when I practised nursing, a great deal of nursing care was delivered by nurses in training or by auxiliaries, albeit under the supervision or delegation of registered nurses.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to a number of case studies and gave details of case study A. That saves me going through similar illustrations which bring out the complexities of the nature of care and which show that nursing is delivered by a team and not by individuals.
I cannot, as a nurse, agree with the definition which is proposed in this part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will, as has already been suggested by other noble Lords, feel able to take this away and bring back something else for Third Reading. I have spoken to a number of nurses about this definition and I do not know of any of them who would accept for one moment that this is a reasonable and proper definition of nursing care, even applied in a social care setting. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can convince me that I am wrong or, better still, that he will take this away and bring back something else on Third Reading.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been an intense and well intentioned debate. However, at the end of the day this is a question of priorities and of where we should best spend the extra resources to ensure that we can provide effective services to the care groups covered by this clause and the amendments.
At times in this debate it has been hard to recognise from comments made that the Bill before us is a substantial step forward. Our proposals for free nursing care will benefit about 30,000 people and remove one of the worst inequities in the current funding system.
In Committee we debated and rejected the idea of providing free personal care. Surely that was the right decision. The question is where best we should spend our resources. The Government are convinced that we can achieve more by investing resources in other services, including the development of intermediate care. I know that many noble Lords feel that the
370
definition of nursing care on which the Government have decided is unsatisfactory. Over the weeks in which we have debated this matter I have given it careful consideration. However, I believe that this approach, based on the services of a registered nurse, is the only workable approach. I do not believe that there is the holy grail of another definition which will give us a workable approach.
I am aware that Amendments Nos. 44 and 46 have considerable support and have been developed by the Royal College of Nursing, which has always argued for free personal care. I understand those who have argued that the amendments are a compromise, a small extension to the Government's definition that will be fairer and more workable. However, having analysed the matter carefully, I do not believe that that will be the effect. Indeed, the amendments would lead to significant additional spending, which we estimate at between £250 million and £300 million per year; introduce free personal care in some settings and not others; increase inequities in the system and, indeed, place more pressure on nurses carrying out their assessment.
Furthermore, I believe that serious problems are created by the drafting of the amendment. Noble Lords have already mentioned the courts. The acceptance of the amendment is guaranteed to ensure that many of the issues would end up being decided by the courts. I say that because the aim of the amendment is to define nursing care as the services provided, delegated or supervised by a registered nurse following a nursing assessment, regardless of who delivers the care and for the NHS to take on those services.
That is no small step. To include all the care supervised or delegated by a nurse is likely to include much of the care at present provided by social services. The RCN briefing on the amendment makes it clear that it expects bathing, toileting, dressing and other daily care tasks to fall within its definition of nursing care. The amendment seeks to transfer a great deal of responsibility for care from social services to the NHS. The clearest example is care provided in a nursing home. People are placed in a nursing home because they require the supervision of a registered nurse on the premises 24 hours a day.
Therefore, on the definition in the amendment, all care in a nursing home could be considered to be under the supervision of a registered nurse. Thus the amendment would seek to transfer the responsibility to the NHS, effectively introducing free personal care in nursing homes but not in any other setting. Such a situation would be unfair. A person assessed as needing a residential care home place but with some nursing care needs met by the district nurse would face means-tested charges for personal care, but if assessed as needing a nursing home place would receive free personal care. That would certainly not be the right incentive to add to the system. It would drive people towards the most institutionalised care and place intolerable pressures on nurses carrying out the assessment as the financial interests of their employer

371
and their client would be clearly opposed. All would hang on the decision for a nursing or residential care home.
I also believe that the amendment would impact on the way in which residential care is funded. Care assistants in care homes assist district nurses in many of their tasks as a matter of course. Turning residents to prevent bed sores, or changing dressings between district nurse visits, might be examples, but under the terms of the amendment, those tasks may be seen as being under the supervision of or delegated by a registered nurse. Care homes may therefore expect an additional payment to cover those costs or expect the NHS to provide the staff needed to perform them. Clearly, that would add to the costs and the need to determine who was responsible for which "supervised" or "delegated" service, which would certainly add much bureaucracy.
However, there are also problems with the approach taken by the amendment which would, in my view, make it unworkable. Until this point I have based my remarks on the premise that the amendment achieves its aims. Indeed, that is the basis on which we should debate such issues. But the technical flaws in the amendment are so great that I should like to draw them to the attention of noble Lords.
The amendments do not require the NHS to provide nursing care as defined by the amendment. Instead, they prevent local authorities providing those services. The NHS would have to be directed to provide nursing care as defined by the amendment. Although the NHS can provide services ancillary to NHS services when there is a need for a high level of health or nursing care, it is not obliged to provide such services where there is no need for high levels of NHS care. It is therefore questionable whether directions can be used to require the NHS to provide all the care covered by the amendment as much of the care is currently regarded as social care. If the amendment prevents local authorities providing such services, and there is no firm duty on the NHS, we run the risk of gaps appearing and the near certainty of the whole move being brought before the courts.
The amendment could paralyse local planning for the provision of care. Local authorities would have no basis on which to plan their services or any control over the services they would provide to an individual. In effect, the local authorities' responsibility would be determined on a case-by-case basis by a third party nursing assessment. That would create huge uncertainty and additional bureaucracy and could increase the level of unfair variations.
The amendments do not deal effectively with the complex interaction between healthcare and the benefits system. For example, if the NHS provided nursing care in nursing homes, there would be the knock-on effect of disentitling residents to DSS attendance allowances, thus reducing the financial benefits they receive. Changing the definition in that way could even leave some people worse off.
372
The definition of care which a council cannot provide is unworkable. It removes a duty from local authorities without ensuring that the NHS can pick up that duty. Even if the NHS could provide the additional services, the amendment would make the division of care to be provided by each agency determined on a case-by-case assessment with no clear legal foundation or guarantee of fairness and consistency.
Clause 57 as drafted introduces a level playing field for the provision of the services of a registered nurse. The aim, stated in the Government's response to the Royal Commission on long-term care, is to remove the anomaly that some people in nursing homes have to pay for the services they need from a registered nurse, when this is free on every other setting. I have looked very carefully at the whole question of definitions. I believe that we have in the Bill as it stands the only workable definition.
I want now to deal with Amendment No. 45 which seeks to add medical equipment and personal aids to the care which local authorities cannot provide or arrange to be provided. It would be helpful if I described what equipment the NHS currently provides for people in care homes and how it is putting increased investment into equipment services.
The NHS already provides specialist medical and nursing equipment not available on prescription and normally available only through hospitals; for example, specialist feeding equipment, ventilators, diagnostic equipment and oxygen therapy services. These are provided to people in nursing homes, residential care homes or their own homes. Where equipment or aids are available on prescription, individuals can access them through prescription. When the NHS becomes responsible for providing care from a registered nurse in all settings, this will include the equipment used by those nurses.
I agree that equipment is extremely important in enabling people to stay independent and stay in their own homes for longer. That is why in 2001–02 we expect the NHS to be spending an additional £11.7 million on community equipment services compared with last year, with increasing expenditure to a total increase of £105 million over the three years to 2004. This will mean a 50 per cent increase in the number of people receiving community equipment services.
The additional investment will not only buy more equipment and ensure that people can access up-to-date equipment with new technology, including equipment which enhances residual senses of sight and hearing and communication aids for people with speech impairments. It will also be used to streamline services, to improve information and assessment, so that people can receive the right equipment without delay.
The amendment as it stands would not change the position for the NHS providing any of this equipment. It is already empowered to do so. And it does not strengthen responsibility to do so as the NHS Act 1977 already makes it a duty to provide a service to meet all reasonable requirements.

373
We have made it clear in the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People that homes must install equipment such as aids and hoists for mobility and access. The provision of this basic equipment will be covered within the home's fees for accommodation and personal care.
As regards incontinent supplies, current guidance to the NHS makes it clear that the equipment provided by the NHS for nursing home residents does not cover basics such as incontinent supplies, which should be included in the basic price charged by the home to the local authority or the person. There is no intention to change that position.
I want to make one other point about the amendment. It is not clear what is meant by
"medical, surgical or nursing equipment".
Local authorities provide a great deal of equipment, such as bathroom and mobility equipment, and adaptations such as ramps, rails and lifts to people's own homes. As it stands, the amendment might prevent them from doing so. It could also leave a gap between the service which the local authority could not provide and the service which the NHS regards as reasonably required. Just as with the previous two amendments, there is a danger that people will be left unsure who should provide equipment and there could be delays while those disputes were resolved.
In conclusion, I return to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. We are all aware of the intensity of the debate. However, it is not simply a matter of trying to fine-tune the definition of "nursing care" and suddenly producing a definition which noble Lords believe will meet all the points they raise. I really believe that the definition we have in the Bill is the only practical one possible which produces a level playing field between all sectors of care.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, in order to establish his position beyond peradventure, can he say that he has absolutely no intention of reconsidering the definition of "nursing care" and bringing back any form of amendment on Third Reading?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that I have been consistent throughout our debates. I believe that the definition on the face of the Bill is the right one. It will bring many advantages to many people. It will get rid of the present anomaly and it will allow us to ensure that resources can best be spent on intermediate care. Surely, we should invest our additional resources where there is the potential of helping people to be more independent.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been an important debate and one of high quality. I want to thank all noble Lords from all sides of the House who have spoken in support of my amendments. I want also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who moved her amendment so well and powerfully.
374
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. He spoke of my amendments as opening the floodgates. I greatly respect his views and he knows that, like the Government, I and my party do not favour the provision of free personal care across the board in nursing homes. I repeat that the purpose of the amendments is not to provide for universal free personal care; they have been carefully worded with a view to avoiding that.
The Minister indicated that it would be difficult if not impossible to draw a line between nursing care and care provided by other support workers. I believe that it is difficult but not impossible. Given that the assessment will govern what is and what is not funded free by the NHS, I confess that I do not see the difficulty in saying that, provided a registered nurse carries out the assessment and is content to accept responsibility for the actions of healthcare assistants to whom she directly delegates that work, the system is fair and tightly controlled.
The Minister may have ignored, or at least passed over, the significance in my amendment of one word. It is the word "and" at the end of subsection (2)(a). I suggest that the definition of nursing should not depend simply on the work that
"is provided, delegated or supervised by a registered nurse",
but that it should be work that has previously been planned for that patient by a registered nurse after assessing need. I thought that that phrasing would sufficiently tighten the definition so as to avoid the kind of problems to which the Minister referred. I believe that the Government's definition, for all the Minister's defence of it, is artificial and will not be readily understood. In the end, the needs of the patient should come first, as I have said. Furthermore, as many noble Lords said, who delivers the care should be immaterial, provided that it is delivered properly. I was also sorry that the Minister said nothing about the perverse incentives to which I referred and which I believe will arise from the Government's definition.
Before I go further, perhaps the Minister would be good enough to say whether he agrees with his noble friend Lord Lipsey that in his assessment my amendment as it stands would effectively provide free personal care across the board; and, if so, whether the noble Lord's implied estimate of the order of expense that the amendment would involve is accurate. I must take that fully on board in deciding what to do with the amendment. With the leave of the House, can the noble Lord give any further indication of the cost of my amendment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that rather puts me on the spot. I must be careful about how I respond. I estimate that the cost of the noble Earl's amendment would be £250 million to £300 million. I believe that his amendment would introduce enormous anomalies between nursing homes and residential care homes. Free personal care would he introduced in a nursing home but would not be available in a residential care home. I believe that that is likely to be unsustainable. Therefore, I believe that

375
his amendment leads to free personal care by the backdoor. I cannot speak on behalf of my noble friend, but I believe he suggests that if that logic is followed, one ends up with a large bill for free personal care which one might then have to extend to people's homes as well if one wanted to remove all the inconsistencies.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who, I believe, makes an extremely important point. I am not so pigheaded as to believe that the wording of these amendments is necessarily perfect. Both the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the Minister have told me that they do not have the effect that I intend. I do not believe that they are right but I must consider that they may be. I take seriously the Minister's statement that the amendment as worded could lead to people being worse off than they are at present and to gaps in service provision. I also must take seriously that there will be a substantial cost attached to this amendment. It was clear to me that there would be a cost attached to it, but I did not believe that it would be of the order suggested, or anything like it.
However clear I may be in my mind that this is an issue of both fairness and practicality, in this House we have a duty to think carefully before pressing amendments which have a major financial impact. I have no wish to make the Government's life easier in any way, but I speak about the role and functions of this House. I do not, therefore, propose to press the amendment today. Between now and Third Reading I shall consider what the Minister has said and look afresh at the wording of the amendment. I reserve the right to return to the issue at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: Not Content!
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 44) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lucas, L.

Blackwell, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Maddock, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Methuen, L.

Dholakia, L.[Teller]

Northover, B.

Falkland, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Geraint, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Greaves, L.

Rennard, L.

Greengross, B.

Renton, L.

376

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Russell, E.

Walmsley, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tope, L.

Williamson of Horton, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Alli, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Amos, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bach, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Blackstone, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Borrie, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Brookman, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Burlison, L. [Teller]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Chandos, V.

Nicol, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Crawley, B.

Patel, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

David, B.

Puttnam, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Desai, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sawyer, L.

Dubs, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Serota, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Filkin, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gilbert, L.

Thornton, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Turnberg, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Uddin, B.

Grenfell, L.

Warner, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Harrison, L.

Whitty, L.

Hayman, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Hughes of Woodside. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
"LIABILITY OF RELATIVES

(1) The National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29) shall be amended as follows.

(2) Sections 42 (Liability to maintain wife, husband or children) and 43 (Recovery of cost of assistance from persons liable for maintenance) shall cease to have effect.

(3) In section 48(3) (Duty of councils to provide temporary protection for property of persons admitted to hospital etc) omit the words "or from any person who for the purposes of this Act is liable to maintain him".

(4) In section 51(1) (Failure to maintain) omit the words "or any person whom he is liable to maintain for the purposes of this Act".

377

(5) In section 56(1) (Legal proceedings) omit the words "other than a sum due under an order made under section 43 of this Act".

(6) In Schedule 6 (Transitional provisions) omit paragraph 19.

(7) The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (c. 22) shall he amended as follows.

(8) In section 46(5) (Burial and cremation) omit the words "or from any person who for the purposes of the National Assistance Act 1948 was liable to maintain the deceased person immediately before his death".

(9) The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42) shall be amended as follows.

(10) In Schedule I (Enactments Conferring Functions Assigned to Social Services committees) for the words "Sections 43 to 45 in column 1" substitute "Section 45"."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am retabling the amendment because I feel that an important improvement for spouses, which I thought had the support of the Minister and his colleagues in another place, is being lost, partly, it would seem, because of the concerns of other departments of state. I pay tribute to the tenacity of my colleagues at Age Concern and in particular Pauline Thompson who has worked very hard on this issue.
In Committee, because it was so late, I was not able to explain as fully as I should have liked why the amendment is so important. It affects few spouses, but it is important to them. In Committee the Minister in his response said that there is a need to look at the links with similar rules in other government departments. He specifically mentioned that there could be significant implications for public spending with a read across to wider social security issues. I do not believe that to be the case. I shall explain why.
The amendment in no way seeks to remove the liability of spouses to maintain each other, or, even more importantly from the point of view of social security spending, to have any impact on the liability of parents to maintain their children. The DSS will still be able to request payment from spouses to contribute to the expenditure that would otherwise be made by that department in the form of income support. I understand that Age Concern has sought an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Social Security to clarify that matter.
The word "maintain" generally in people's minds means the everyday things. Indeed, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary states that "maintain" means to,
"provide … with means of subsistence or the necessities of life",
and to keep in clothing. Indeed, when the DSS seeks maintenance payments, that is what the money covers. It is of a different order when the local authorities ask spouses to pay for what are essentially the care costs of a resident. That is significantly different from paying ordinary maintenance. Many spouses have to pay for clothes and other necessities because the personal expenses allowance does not adequately cover items needed by a resident.
The Minister also talked about situations where the spouse is well off, and said that in those cases the spouse should look to his partner as well as to the state. It is a difficult line to draw. However, I would submit
378
that in most cases where spouses are well off, the person does not approach the state in the first place, but quite happily makes his own arrangements.
The kind of cases that Age Concern came across in its research involved spouses who had modest savings, and in some cases were living on savings and, indeed, needed to do so. Perhaps I may give the House one sadly typical example of what can happen. It is the case of a gentleman in his 80s. When his wife was in hospital, he was told that the local authority would meet the funding for her nursing home care. In addition to suffering from Alzheimer's disease, she has had several strokes and a number of other medical conditions. The gentleman cared for his wife for about three years before a further stroke last year meant that he could no longer manage.
The local authority is sending him hills of over £100 per week, saying that he must make a contribution to his wife's care. His son reports that the gentleman is very worried and extremely upset. He is not well off. He has a small amount of capital, but it happens to be above the limit at which his local authority starts charging liable relatives. He has saved this money throughout his long working life and needs it to supplement his basic state pension.
His wife is so ill that he cannot see why her care is not being funded by the NHS. Then, to add insult to injury, he is expected to make a very substantial contribution to her care costs. He is still to all intents and purposes a carer of his wife. He visits her every day for at least three hours without fail, he helps with feeding and he gives her drinks to make sure that she does not become dehydrated. Above all, he talks to her about their life together to make her feel reassured and help to keep her mentally alert; as otherwise she would have very little conversation with anyone.
I should like also to clear up a little confusion in my mind caused by the debate in Committee. It may have been because of the time of night! In his response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about mandatory disregards for carers, the Minister mentioned that he would issue more guidance to local authorities about how to deal with spouses who care. He specifically mentioned respite care, which of course is anyway a service that should not be charged for carers under the Carers and Disabled Children Act. I would argue—and did so in Committee—that spouses whose partners are in long-term care retain a significant caring role, often at considerable physical and emotional expense to themselves.
It is worth remembering that only 10 per cent of those in residential care even have a spouse at all, so 90 per cent are unaffected by the amendment; and that of that 10 per cent a tiny fraction are pursued by local authorities. Age Concern estimates the number at just 300, with varying amounts from £3 a week to, in one case, more than £400 a week. Can the Minister confirm how much he thinks the amendment would cost local authorities? I think that it will be no more than six figures. Only one-third of local authorities—about 30—even have a policy to pursue liable spouses; therefore, two-thirds do not. Of the one-third that do, only 17 currently seek a contribution from a spouse.
If most local authorities do not even pursue liable spouses, let us stop the few that do go on, as the Minister said in Committee, "fishing expeditions", particularly as it will not cost much—well under £1 million—but will end considerable individual distress for those who are affected. I do not believe that there is a read-across to social security spending and so I hope that the Minister can now accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. This is a matter of injustice, albeit to a small number of people. Not only do different local authorities make different decisions on whether to pursue the policy, but the way in which they pursue the policy differs as well.
As I said in our previous debate, if all the reforms being brought forward by the Government are to work, they will have to be built on a basis of clarity. The Minister took me to task earlier today for being unduly unfair on the NHS. I should like to redress the balance by having a good old go at local authorities. The serious point that has run through all of our discussions today is the need to have absolute clarity about charges; about what is charged for; who receives those charges; and what happens to the income from those charges. We hear more and more about pooled budgets and more and more about integration between the NHS, which is not allowed to make charges, and social services departments, which are. We must do all we can to ensure that the financing of social care becomes more transparent and is not a matter of educated guesswork. In this instance, only a small minority of people are affected, but as a general principle we should support the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. This is a fairly small point in money terms but it is none the less one which responds to known distress. We know that there is a good deal of distress among those who have to decide that their spouse should go into care. That is exacerbated not only by a possible charge but by not knowing clearly whether they will have to pay for care. Many of us have experienced that feature. It is reasonable to sort out this question now because the evidence shows that at the present time the application is close to a lottery. Seventeen out of 91 authorities asked spouses for payment. Some were following it up; others were not following it up. Whether one is subject to a potential or actual bill depends on where one happens to live.
It is interesting that the majority of authorities were flouting the Government's published guidelines on a number of issues, such as how they obtained the information on finance. I mention that point because in the House we are frequently told that government guidelines are the answer to many issues. However, we sometimes find that people do not take any notice of
380
them. Let us hope that the Government will at least take notice of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in the arguments that she has so clearly articulated. I have read the background brief from Age Concern. It has left me in no doubt that for some elderly people whose spouses have been admitted into care homes the burden of having to pay what is quite often a substantial proportion of their limited income or capital towards the cost of the spouse's care is very considerable indeed. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, the distress caused is often enormous.
I understand the problem. I hope that the Government will be more sympathetic on this occasion than on the previous one. I have only two hesitations over the amendment. The first relates to the question of read-across. When we debated the issue in Committee, the Minister indicated that he had sympathy with the principle of the amendment but that there was in his judgment a problem of read-across to wider social security issues. I should like the Minister to comment further on that point if he can, if necessary by writing to me and to the noble Baroness.
In my experience, read-across tends to be a favoured argument deployed by officials when they are confronted by a proposal that they do not like. I should like to be absolutely clear about the extent and nature of the read-across. Is the noble Lord saying that it is unavoidable? If it is avoidable, we come to my second hesitation. What assessment have the Government made of the cost of the amendment as a stand-alone measure? Age Concern has told me that the cost would be minimal, by which I mean a few hundred thousand pounds in total. It would be difficult not to be sympathetic to the points made by the noble Baroness, but before I make up my mind finally I should like to hear from the Minister what its financial implications are. I hope that at the very least the Minister and his colleagues will take the amendment away and look afresh at the whole issue before Third Reading.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that I made it clear in Committee that I am not unsympathetic to the principles and philosophy espoused by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I pay tribute to the work of Age Concern in highlighting these problems. However, I have to say that the issue of read-across is a substantial one and causes us some difficulty.
Noble Lords will know that under Sections 42 and 43 of the National Assistance Act 1948 councils can ask married partners to contribute to the residential care costs of their spouses where the spouse's contribution from their own income or assets, as determined by the means test for residential care, is not sufficient to cover care home fees. The amendment would stop councils seeking such contributions. It would also apply similarly to other services provided under the National Assistance Act 1948.

381
I am aware of some of the difficulties, highlighted by Age Concern, caused by the operation of the liable relatives rule with respect to residential care. I understand the distress that can be caused to a small number of residents and their husbands or wives at what is already a difficult time. The report from Age Concern (England) was important. It commented that some social services departments can bring considerable pressure to bear on spouses to make a contribution and may cause considerable distress as they do so. It is also worth remarking that the report made it clear that only a small number of spouses are being pursued for payments by councils and that the majority are not being asked. That provides evidence of the patchy application of the rule.
It is right and proper that councils are able, where appropriate, to seek contributions to care costs where the resident has relatively meagre resources, while the partner at home is comparatively well off. In those circumstances, it is right that residents should look not only to the state for support, but also to their partners. Indeed, many older people realise this and would wish to support their loved ones without even being asked, notwithstanding the fair application of the means test.
I am happy to respond to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the issue of read-across. However, given the intrinsic difficulties of describing DSS matters in great detail, I shall write to him. Essentially, the read-across we identify is that if the council stops seeking liable relatives contributions for spouses in care homes, the DSS would seek contributions where residents rely on income support. If councils did not have to seek liable relative contributions, there would then be pressure on the DSS to follow suit in regard to income support and child support. We estimate that, for example, if the DSS repealed its liable relative legislation, the costs would amount to over £350 million.
I recognise that the noble Earl asked me about the specific costs in this case. If one was able completely to ring-fence the liable relatives rule in relation to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, the best estimate I have for that is £10 million. Again, however, I am happy to write to both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl 'with further details on this.
It is worth making the point that many councils apply current guidance and common sense and, as I have already indicated, only a few seek liable relative contributions from spouses. I listened with great care to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in relation to the issue of local authority performance and guidance. I believe that the current guidance should be adequate to smooth out the problems. It is our intention to remind councils of current guidance rather than repealing this fundamental rule. When residential care charging guidance is reissued in September this year, I reiterate that we shall remind councils that, when deciding on the level of contribution they wish to seek from a liable relative, they need to take account of the relevant financial circumstances and normal standard
382
of living. They then need to discuss and negotiate a mutually acceptable amount. I believe that that is the best way forward.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I have to say that I remain bitterly disappointed with the Minister's reply. I do not believe that such a level of read-across would apply and I am anxious to see the evidence that the Minister has agreed to forward of why that should be so. I believe that both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I would be glad if we could see that evidence before we reach Third Reading.
Something about the matter of liable relatives is reminiscent of the 1930s, given the small sums involved here. I am deeply upset to hear such arguments being put forward now. This concerns very few people, but so much distress is caused. I do not wish to test the opinion of the House, but I reserve the right to do so at Third Reading if that is necessary. However, by that time I hope that it will not be necessary because the Minister may have reconsidered his position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 63 [Power for local authorities to take charges on land instead of contributions]:
Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 66, line 45, at end insert ", or
(c) at the discretion of the authority, on such later date as it may deem appropriate in order to protect a carer or close relative of the resident from homelessness.
(4A) The Secretary of State shall provide guidance to local authorities as to how they should exercise their discretion under subsection (4)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may offer the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, who supports this amendment but who has had to attend a vital meeting this evening. He is sorry to miss the debate.
I am tempted to open my remarks by saying, "If not £350 million, Minister, or even £10 million, what about almost nothing for this amendment?" The amendment seeks to deal with a new situation that will arise from the Bill. We are all concerned about those circumstances where someone is being looked after at home by a carer. The person then goes into a home and, because of the need to meet the care home fees, the carer then has to leave that home. I know that the Minister is also concerned about this. Free nursing care, as is proposed in the Bill, will help to make this happen less often.
However, under the Bill as it is likely to be passed, another situation will arise: when someone goes into a home, leaving behind a carer in their residence, that carer may not have been disregarded for the means test because they are not a sufficiently close relative or because the local authority has not used its discretion to disregard. The carer continues to live in the person's home. Charges are then taken by the local authority against that home in lieu of contributions under the means test. The person in care then dies. Under the terms of the Bill, within 56 days the home must be put

383
up for sale and the charges discharged. I am afraid that that will mean that the poor old carer may find themselves being evicted.
I seek here to give the local authority a discretion—admittedly a discretion under ministerial guidance—to say, "Yes, you can stay on here and when you are ready to move, to go into a home, or you die, you can then pay us back". The money will still be paid. Public expenditure may be shifted, but it will not be lost as a consequence of such an arrangement. This would cost nothing. Indeed, it is so cheap that even the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to whom I pay tribute because he has been so responsible this evening, would surely support the proposal.
When I raised this matter in Committee I accused the Minister of giving me a disappointing and dusty reply. However, since then he and his officials have been most helpful in discussing it with me. I do not think that we have quite concluded those discussions, but I ask him to consider the proposal. It would cost nothing and would do quite a lot of good. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I am tempted to observe that if the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is seeking the support of the rest of the House in his amendment, then that may not happen without question—given the hard time that he has given noble Lords during the passage of the Bill.
I should like to put a question to the noble Lord. He said that a house would need to be put on the market within 56 days. I believe that the Bill states that charges will be made against someone who remains in a house after 56 days, whether or not the house has been sold. I have some difficulty with that, as noble Lords will know from the points that I made in Committee. People may need to meet substantial costs for properties which they have not been able to sell for reasons that are not their fault. I raise that point again simply as a means of moving the argument forward.
The point I should like to make as regards this proposal concerns the discretionary powers of local authorities to disregard. Concerns have been expressed about the extent to which those will be used, especially as regards the extent to which those discretionary powers will be used once the deferred payments scheme comes into effect, and their inter-relationship.
In his response to the amendment, will the Minister indicate whether or not he agrees that there should be safeguards to ensure that local authorities do not use the deferred payment scheme agreement rather than their discretion to disregard property in which a carer remains?
In our previous discussions in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and I, in slightly different ways, referred to the fact that family relationships—or what are considered to be family relationships—are becoming much broader and more loosely defined these days, perhaps more broadly and loosely defined than even the DSS has yet caught up with. We are
384
specifically concerned about people who are, in effect, carers but who may not be regarded as being carers under some of the DSS legislation.
I simply raise those points in order to give the Minister an opportunity to explain, in some detail, the way in which the disregards will work.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lipsey has come to my aid on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill. I feel a little churlish in having potentially to disappoint him yet again. I took note of the comments that he made in Committee and certainly I hope that we can eventually find a way forward in this area.
As noble Lords will know, the deferred payment scheme applies only to people with property, the value of which is taken into account for the purposes of the means test for residential accommodation. Where property owned by residents continues to be occupied by certain third parties, its value is already disregarded from the means test. This is set out in regulations. So where a property is occupied by one of the listed people—which includes the resident's spouse or partner, relatives who are 60 or over or relatives who are incapacitated—the value of it is disregarded under the means test. In addition, councils have discretion to disregard property where it continues to be occupied by a third party not covered by the mandatory disregards.
The Department of Health already provides guidance to councils on the application of mandatory and discretionary property disregards. The guidance particularly reminds councils of their discretionary powers where a former carer not covered by the mandatory disregards continues to live in a resident's property. Many councils exercise their discretion in this area and disregard property where it is occupied by a former carer who does not fall under the mandatory disregards.
Despite this, we are aware that some carers may be required to find alternative accommodation when the person they have cared for enters residential care, and we are aware of the distress and hardship that that can cause. I am not in a position to say that we can alter the regulations to include regular and substantial carers among those situations where the mandatory property disregard applies because of resource consequences, but I can assure noble Lords that we will keep the matter under review and, should resources become available, we will consider further whether to amend regulations.
My noble friend's amendment would give councils the discretion to extend the exempt period of a deferred payment arrangement to allow former carers or other relatives of the resident to remain living in the property or to allow them time to make other arrangements. The amendment appears to assume that were councils not to have this discretion, such carers and relatives would either have to find the funds to pay the debt—including any interest that accrues—or find alternative accommodation. However, as I have

385
described, the value of a resident's property which continues to be occupied by a carer or close relative of the resident will in most cases be disregarded under the existing mandatory or discretionary property disregards.
We are minded to extend the mandatory disregards to all caring situations in the future should resources become available. Where the value of a resident's property is disregarded, there will be no need for the resident to enter into a deferred payment agreement secured on the disregarded property. So the scenario the amendment addresses is unlikely to occur.
As to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the deferred payment scheme is not to replace disregards, either mandatory or discretionary. It will be an option only once the disregard is referred. Guidance will cover when it is appropriate to use deferred payments, including not replacing disregards. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness with more details about that, but it is certainly not intended to work in the way that she fears it may do. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, which I look forward to studying. I am not in the least disappointed by it, although that does not mean I am necessarily yet fully satisfied. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—for the time being, at any rate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Cross-border placements]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 67, line 37, at end insert—
(3) Regulations under this section may not treat any person differently from any other person by virtue of his place of birth or his place of residence prior to the time when he became subject to arrangements made under section 21 of the 1948 Act."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 brings us to the interesting issues raised in Clause 64 relating to cross-border placements. I shall be quite brief, but the matters I wish to highlight are important.
Noble Lords will be aware of the possibility that the Scottish Parliament may decide to head in a different direction from the Government in England and Wales and make personal care, as well as nursing care, in nursing homes free on the NHS. If it does so, that will be its prerogative and I have no wish to interfere or criticise it in so doing. However, should we find at some point in the future that a more generous regime operates north of the Border than south of it, the consequences could be far reaching.
It might be tempting for some people in England to apply for a placement in Scotland in the knowledge that their personal care needs would not be means tested. The temptation for the Government in such a situation might be to seek to disbar people who would normally be resident in England from availing themselves of the more generous Scottish arrangements.
I think back to the debate in the House on higher education in the context of the Scottish devolution Bill, in which my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish played such a distinguished part. With university tuition fees north of the Border, we have a situation where students from Scotland and students from other EU member states get free tuition but students normally resident in England do not. That discrimination against students from one part of the UK is, I believe, anomalous and unfair and causes great resentment. Furthermore, it is entirely as a result of a conscious choice made by the Government.
The proposal that I am putting to the Government in the amendment is that they should not go down the same road with personal care charges if at some stage we find different policies operating on either side of the Border. If someone normally resident in England goes to live in a Scottish care home, that person should be able to avail himself or herself of the more generous charging regime, if such a regime exists.
I say this as a matter of principle. Health spending in Scotland is 20 per cent higher per capita than it is in England. That, indeed, is why some members of the Scottish Executive are so clear that free personal care in care homes is an affordable option. But the reason that health spending is 20 per cent higher in Scotland than in England is that the block grant made to Scotland under the Barnett formula makes this possible. It is the fiscal transfers from the UK Exchequer, comprised of money raised from general taxation, that enables the Scottish Executive to operate a more generous health policy than we do in England.
That is why I maintain that the issue raised by my amendment is a matter of principle and why it would be wrong to deprive people ordinarily resident in England of free personal care in a Scottish care home. I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say about this. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I look forward with avid anticipation to hearing what the Minister has to say about this. It occurs to me that, should we legislate in this way at Westminster, the Scottish Parliament might do something back from the other side and legislate in another way to frustrate it. I do not know.
I say to my noble friend that I believe that it is very dangerous—I have had this pointed out to me by German friends—to include in legislation anything differentiating people by their place of birth. I rather wish that he had not done that. Differentiation on the basis of residence is the right way to do it. I am not sure that my noble friend will press the amendment, but that is an important point.
When the Minister replies, will he tell the House where the Scots Parliament is with its proposal? My understanding is that it does not yet have a Bill; or, if it does have a Bill, that it has not begun to process it. I am not sure. I know that the Minister spent Easter

387
not far from where I live and perhaps he heard the gossip when he was in Glen Prosen. If not, perhaps he knows through official channels what is happening.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this debate brings back happy memories of the Scottish devolution Bill as it went through this House. The noble Baroness is right to stress the word "residence". That is important. My understanding is that the Scottish Executive is still considering the detailed application of the proposals in relation to personal care. We shall look with great interest to see how the proposal is developed in the future.
I shall not be drawn by the noble Earl to comment on the Barnett formula. I suspect that that would not be wise on my part.
It is clear, if we are looking at the principle behind the amendment, that we want people in care homes to be able to exercise a genuine choice as to where they want to live. Clearly, they should live in a care home with which they are comfortable. That will often mean a home near their families and friends. That is why we want to give local authorities this new power to make placements in care homes in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man. It is also why the arrangements provided for in the direction on choice—which give individuals the right to choose where they receive residential care—exist.
Local authorities must not be allowed to discriminate on any grounds when deciding whether to make use of the new power this clause will give them. The basis on which we shall expect them to make decisions about care home placements of this kind is the need for the individual concerned to be near members of his or her family or near friends. Such placements will also be subject to the principles set out in the direction on choice, which we shall consider updating in the light of the power that local authorities will have to make care home placements in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man. In other words, the preferred accommodation must be suitable in relation to the individual's assessed needs; it must be available; and the cost to the local authority must not be more than the authority would expect to pay for such a place having regard to the individual's assessed needs and the location of the home.
Under existing legislation, once a person with assessed care needs is ordinarily resident in a local authority area, that authority has an obligation to provide for any residential accommodation needs he or she has, including a care home place in a different local authority if necessary. This principle will continue to apply to cross-border placements. The authority responsible for the person cannot refuse to help on the basis of where the person was born and will not be able to do so when using this new power; the person's place of residence prior to the time he or she needed publicly funded care is the basis on which the local authority responsible for meeting his or her care needs is determined. After consultation with interested
388
parties, we intend to issue guidance to local authorities that will explain the factors that they need to take into account.
The situation as regards Scotland is this, assuming the introduction of free personal care. If a person is ordinarily resident in Scotland, the appropriate Scottish council will be responsible for placing him or her in a care home, if that is the level of care appropriate to his or her needs. The place where he or she was born makes no difference to this. If the Scottish council decides, in conjunction with the person concerned and the relatives, that a home in England best meets those needs, it would need to decide on what basis to contract with the home. Community care for Scottish residents is a devolved matter and the placement would therefore be made in accordance with the Scottish Executive's policy on the funding of personal care. As I have said, the Scottish Executive has yet to finalise its proposals.
If, in reverse, someone is ordinarily resident in England, the English local council is responsible for assessing his or her care needs and would, under Clause 64, be able to place him or her in a care home anywhere in the UK. Again, the place where the person was born makes no difference to this. If the person's needs call for him to be placed in a home outside the council's area, the council will have to pay the appropriate cost, which it will negotiate with the home in the usual manner. If the person is placed outside England—for example, in Scotland—the key is that the English council will buy the services that it would buy were the home in England. It will charge the person for the care home place, on a means-tested basis, as if he or she were resident in a home in England. In those circumstances, that person would not receive free personal care. I hope that that clarifies the point for the noble Earl.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords, it does—although not in the way that I had expected. I am glad that I tabled the amendment. In Committee, when the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised an amendment on this topic, it appeared to me that the Minister, while reassuring the noble Baroness, chose his words with some care. His reassurance was given explicitly within the context of existing legislation. He ended by saying:
"I do not believe that there is an issue here with the current legislation".—[Official Report, 22/3/01; col. 1678.]
It was precisely to address that point that I tabled the amendment: to obtain, if possible, clearer reassurance. I am afraid that the reassurance has not been forthcoming, or at least not in the form in which I thought it may come.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister. I shall study his comments with care and no doubt, if I need to, follow up the matter in correspondence. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Control of patient information]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 70, line 41, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we come now to Clause 68. As noble Lords will be aware, it has caused considerable dismay and alarm among doctors, patients, the pharmaceutical industry and in many other quarters in the health community. To assist noble Lords, the amendments have been divided up to reflect the two separate and distinct strands of the clause. The first group deals with the issue of anonymised patient data. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57.
The pharmaceutical industry depends on a flow of detailed, accurate and regularly updated information about the patterns of drug use and drug prescribing in the NHS. It needs the information for commercial purposes, including the surveillance of drug safety. The information is gathered and processed by commercial data-gathering companies. It takes the form of wholly anonymised statistics and analyses. The data are also used by universities and other non-commercial research bodies to address a whole range of health-related matters; for example, drug safety, drug interactions, antibiotic resistance and basic research into many types of serious disease. In addition, it is supplied to the NHS, thereby enabling it to plan and budget more effectively.
In Clause 68 the Government seek to take powers to restrict or prohibit the flow of this type of information when it is being used for the purposes of marketing or promotion which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is contrary to the economic or financial interests of the health service.
What lies behind this, in a nutshell, is the Department of Health's perception that pharmaceutical companies, in marketing their products to doctors, ratchet up the NHS drugs bill. Perhaps I may explain why in my opinion this perception is ill founded and wrong. The pharmaceutical industry, which is one of the most successful industries in this country, is characterised by two main features: first, its record of innovation and, secondly, its intense competitiveness. In recent years, alongside the introduction of hundreds of new drug treatments, there has been a consistent reduction in the price of medicines supplied to the NHS.
The cost of NHS medicines is now 14 per cent lower in real terms than 10 years ago. The pace of competition in medicines over this period has meant that a new product is now almost invariably brought to the NHS at a price lower than its competitors in the market. Indeed, for a pharmaceutical company to make inroads into the market with a new product, it must typically demonstrate to doctors that the product can equal or better its rivals on two counts: efficacy and price. There is no reason whatever to believe that that trend will do anything other than continue. Prices will carry on falling.
The potential for cost savings in the NHS, brought about by switching patterns of prescribing, is great. However, in the end what matters most is what is best for patients. Collecting data in order to bring the best treatments to patients is not something to be deplored;
390
it should be positively encouraged. Some new treatments have a higher than average cost to the NHS—often, but not necessarily, treatments that have no direct rival in the marketplace. But the beneficial impact of medicines should not be measured simply against their cost to the NHS. Reduced ill health enables people to return to work more quickly and lessens the burden on other public sector budgets. We can say it simply: cheap prescribing does not equate to good prescribing.
How can the use of anonymised data to monitor prescribing patterns across the country possibly he against the best interests of patients, doctors or the NHS? It is a wholly legitimate objective of the pharmaceutical industry to wish to share knowledge with doctors about advances in treatment. Indeed, that process is essential if doctors are to keep abreast of the latest medical developments for the benefit of their patients. The fact is that the fear expressed by the Government as to the misuse of data by pharmaceutical companies is not supported by any evidence whatever.
Let us consider what would happen if the Government were to get their way. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, so rightly said in Committee, these commercial databases are expensive to develop and to maintain. Once you remove their commercial funding, there is absolutely no one else who would maintain them. The NHS would certainly not be in a position to do so. The Government say that nothing in this part of the clause would inhibit research. It is perfectly true that the powers in the Bill would not prohibit the use of anonymised data for medical research or the safety monitoring of medicines. But the point that seems to have escaped the Government is that if you prevent pharmaceutical companies from using data for marketing purposes, the data will not be gathered. If that happens, all the other consequent activities will also cease. It is only because data are collected for commercial purposes in the first instance that universities and other non-profit-making bodies, can take advantage of them in such ways.
However, there are other dangers. I have spoken about the message that a policy of this kind sends out to a pharmaceutical industry that sees this Government erecting more and more barriers in its path. The Government have made great play of wishing to enter a partnership with industry. The Prime Minister recently said as much. That is a fine aim, but this is a funny way to go about it. More to the point, the consequences could be damaging to the national interest. Up till now the UK has been a favoured destination for inward pharmaceutical investment. Sour the industrial climate here and you put that investment seriously at risk.
The disturbing aspect of these powers is that the language used to describe them is vague. The meaning of the terms is not at all clear: there is huge scope for subjective interpretation by the Secretary of State. Nor are there any firm or clear proposals on exactly what regulations the Government intend to introduce; indeed, I am not even sure that they know. Contrary to the recommendation of your Lordships' Select

391
Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, no draft regulations have been published. For a matter such as this, that is quite extraordinary. However, I have to say that it is all of a piece with the way that the Government have behaved over this matter.
When the Bill was first published there had been absolutely no prior consultation on the issue. Given all that, the question that springs to mind is this: why cannot the Government take a step backwards, withdraw subsections (1) and (2) and take time to consult properly before introducing legislation with which all sides are content? Amendments have been tabled to the clause that would have the effect of ameliorating considerably the adverse impact of these provisions. I very much hope that the Minister will accept those amendments. Alternatively, perhaps he can tell me that there is a dialogue under way with the industry that shows signs of bearing fruit during the next few days. If the noble Lord cannot address either of those requests, I may well seek to press the amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I should advise the House that if Amendment No. 51 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 in this group.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I attached my name to Amendment No. 51 and should like to say a few words in that respect. Noble Lords will remember that discussion on this clause took place extremely late at night in Committee; indeed, I had been advised to go home—I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I read the Hansard report of the Committee proceedings carefully. However, at the time, noble Lords did not have the benefit of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on human genetic databases, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. It had been completed but it had not been published. I note that a number of members of that committee are present in the Chamber. No doubt they are hoping to take part in this debate. I should add that the Minister was also not able to take account of the report. Having studied it—I am sure those in his department have done so—I trust that he will now recognise that part of the problem may perhaps be solved along the lines that the Select Committee recommended.
There is an entire chapter on the subject of ethics, privacy and consent in the report. I am tempted to read a large part of that to your Lordships but I have to remember that we are discussing a particular clause of the Bill. This is not a debate on the Select Committee's report. Nevertheless, what we had to say in that committee was entirely relevant to the issues that my noble friend Lord Howe outlined when opening the debate.
I should point out straightaway that we supported the need to safeguard the flow of information from patients to enable the disease registries to continue to function. A powerful case was made for that by way of the evidence that was placed before us. I have since
392
read the briefing provided by the Association of Medical Research Charities. I believe that there is a need for subsections (3) and (4) onwards to remain in the Bill—I should add that I did not attach my name to the amendment that seeks to remove the entire clause from the Bill. That is necessary because the recommendations of the GMC appeared at first blush to make that extremely difficult: it was going to require written consent from all the people whose information would be supplied, for example, to the cancer registries. The council told us that that was not actually its intention. It has now said that it will not introduce this requirement until the autumn. Therefore, there is time for the GMC to amend its recommendations. It is right that this information should be safeguarded. However, I do not agree with those who seek to put new obstacles in the way of patient information being supplied to the registries and being supplied for similar purposes.
Like my noble friend, my complaint concerns subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 68. I believe that they are wholly misconceived. They were clearly drawn up before the Select Committee report was published. The evidence that was given to the Select Committee suggests that they will seriously interfere with medical research and with the work that is done particularly by the pharmaceutical industry, but not only by that industry, in producing new treatments, therapies and drugs.
We on the committee were concerned with human genetic databases. As the human genome becomes annotated and as we move into the abstruse sciences of proteonics, genomics and pharmacogenomics, we were told of the opportunities for much more specific targeting of therapies, particularly of drugs, to reflect and react to the individual genetic make-up of patients. That has enormous potential and in the long term will result in enormous savings for the National Health Service. I recite the figures from memory but we were told that in any average treatment, some 40 per cent of patients derive benefit as planned, it has absolutely no effect on a further 40 per cent, perhaps 10 per cent show minor adverse effects and the remaining 10 per cent show quite serious adverse effects. Such results can be extremely costly for the National Health Service. We heard evidence from some of the leading researchers in the field. If one administers the drug only to the 40 per cent who will benefit from it due to their genetic make-up, one will achieve a far more effective use of resources, avoid all the problems associated with adverse drug reactions and advance the science of medicine.
People involved in the industry are frightened of the effect the regulations may have. As my noble friend said, we have been given no indication of what the regulations will comprise. We have been given hints as to why they are being introduced. I refer to the phrase "the ultimate marketing tool" in that regard. However, we are talking about anonymised information here; no patients' names are involved. I shall return to that matter in a moment. The department seems to be frightened that the information may help the drugs companies to make

393
more money. As my noble friend said, that has not been the trend in recent years. I presided over what was called the voluntary price regulation scheme. However, those involved in the industry said that there was nothing voluntary about it at all. It became the prescription price regulation scheme. It has exercised an effective downward pressure on the price of drugs.
What really gets my goat is the way that the measure is presented as necessary to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of patients. There is nothing in the use of anonymised databases—with many of these databases patients cannot be traced—which could conceivably threaten the privacy or confidentiality of patient information. The Select Committee devoted particular attention to that point. There may well be cases where information has been given and tissues have been provided with consent for particular research purposes and subsequently—what we termed "secondary use"—new information comes to light to suggest useful ways to use the tissues or the data that have been provided. In such cases it is impossible to obtain consent from perhaps half a million people 10 years later. We recommended the establishment of a medical panel, a trusted third party, to form a link between patients and researchers who wished to use the information. That system exists in Denmark. A number of people told us that it works extremely well. The trusted third party is the right way to deal with that matter.
What alarms me is the sheer inconsistency of the Government's view that somehow the flow of anonymised data is detrimental to the National Health Service. That view contrasts with what they said to members of the Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force. I shall quote the whole of paragraph 6.11 of the task force report headed,
"Potential for greater use by industry of NHS information".
Therefore, we start from the proposition that NHS information will be jolly useful to the industry. The paragraph states
"Given the necessary safeguards on security and confidentiality of patient data, there is potential for the NHS and industry to work together to develop data sources that will significantly improve the quality of information available for research into medicines. This potential applies across the whole range of pharmaceutical issues: health economics and outcomes research, clinical trials evaluation, epidemiology, safety, education and concordance. Developing this potential is to the mutual benefit of the NHS as it facilitates the better clinical and cost-effective use of medicines and to the industry in its search for improved use of medicines and the development of new medicines. That in turn benefits both public health and industry competitiveness".
I shall not bore the House by quoting at greater length.
Those words will, of course, be familiar to the Minister as he was the joint chairman of the committee that produced the report. His smiling face appears in a photograph at the beginning of it. He is accompanied by the chairman of the ABPI, Dr Tom McKillip. As my noble friend has said, the report was introduced by the Prime Minister. Security and confidentiality of patient data were the only qualifications mentioned in the paragraph I have quoted which otherwise meets exactly what the amendments seek.
394
Nothing in anonymised data threatens the security and confidentiality of patient data. If the medical panel that we suggested is established to tackle secondary uses of information, I believe that the case can be met. The idea that we should give the Government the power to introduce the blanket regulations mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) fills me with horror. We must not allow those two subsections to become law before the election. I hope very much that the Minister will recognise that in the final few days before an election is called his bargaining position is weak. He would be wise to indicate to the House this evening that he will withdraw the subsections. They are a monstrosity and have aroused huge concern not just within the industry but among many other people and they have no place in the Bill.
8 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in speaking to Clause 68, much of what I was going to say has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. However, I refer the Minister to what the Prime Minister stated in the report:
"The UK's pharmaceutical industry has an outstanding tradition and has contributed very substantially to our economy and to the welfare of our citizens … A key feature in maintaining the UK's attractiveness will be effective partnership at the highest levels between Government and industry".
In Committee, I declared an interest as a very occasional adviser to a pharmaceutical company on neuroscience, but that interest is hardly relevant to the issues we are discussing today.
It is the universal opinion of the pharmaceutical industry and its representative body, the ABPI, that the powers provided by Clause 68(1) will undermine the objective clearly set out in the pharmaceutical industry task force report which is the joint government/industry initiative referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. There is already tight control of the marketing of medicines under EC directives, the UK Medicines Act and the industry's own code of practice. The industry has a legitimate need to communicate knowledge of such advances to the medical profession. The use of anonymised prescribing data has been common practice for many years; and not a shred of evidence has been produced to identify a wrongdoing by industry.
The Government suggest that the continuation of the programme of collecting such databases will he contrary to the financial interests of the NHS. The industry is satisfied that the reverse is the case because the evaluation of such data is in the health interest of patients and, if anything, is likely to bring down the costs of such medicines available in the NHS.
The Minister will be fully aware that this issue has been fully considered in the cases in the High Court: The NHS v. Source Informatics and subsequently in the Appeal Court. The judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown eventually came clearly to the conclusion that the use of such anonymised databases were in the interests of the NHS, and not to the contrary. Admittedly, that judgment stated at the end

395
that if the Government wished to overturn that appeal judgment they must take powers to do so—which apparently they seek to do in this Bill.
It is important to reiterate that many of the databases used by patient groups, medical charities, universities and others exist only because of commercial funding derived from marketing or similar activities. The Government do not collect, and are in no position to collect, the same quality or quantity of data as does the private sector. I have been assured by the company which succeeded Source Informatics—the body involved in that court case—that the fact that such information is used by patients' groups and research and regulatory bodies helps to improve and scrutinise prescribing and drug safety, such as Paracetomol availability and suicide inquiries. It includes information about what is done in the NHS that is not collected by the NHS—prescribing in hospital. The fact that it is provided to the NHS itself enables the NHS to plan services, the likely impact of drugs on budgets and patients' needs.
With that in mind, I am entirely convinced that the most appropriate and consensual way to proceed would be for the Government to withdraw Clause 68(1) while simultaneously launching a public consultation exercise to review all the issues in detail over the summer months. The outcome—I hope that it could be underpinned by agreement between the industry, the medical research community, patients' organisations and the Government—could, if necessary, be cemented by subsequent legislation. I believe that the commercial organisations involved in this situation would be willing and constructive participants in any such consultation. I do not comment at this moment on Clause 68(2) although I share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
If Ministers refuse to withdraw Clause 68(1), they should at least be prepared to amend it. At the very least, they should omit the words "marketing or other", leaving simply the question of promotional activities. However, I believe that that would be unsatisfactory. It is important that that part of the clause should be deleted from the Bill. If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, had intended—I believe that he does not so intend—to divide the House, I should have supported such a proposal.
It is a serious matter. It is one about which many people in the pharmaceutical industry, the jewel in Britain's industrial crown, are deeply concerned.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I have the strongest sympathy with much that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said; and with the remarks of the noble Lord with whom I sat on the Select Committee which considered genetic databases.
I believe that in principle we should seek to encourage the pharmaceutical industry, not inhibit it. There are many ways in which the Government could promote co-operation with the pharmaceutical
396
industry which could be of enormous benefit to us in this country. It co-operates to some extent, in particular with universities and PhD training programmes. But if we had the right relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, we might possibly persuade it to do some of the jobs currently needed with regard to science in schools, and a range of other areas.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to one specific area. I am sure he will be sympathetic. I declare an interest. I am R&D director for the National Health Service Trust at the Hammersmith Hospitals. I think that it is the largest slice of the NHS R&D budget. There is a real problem. The Department of Health asks us actively to indulge and engage in intellectual property: to ensure that intellectual property is exploited within the National Health Service. In my trust we have recently conducted a thorough IPR audit. It stands to reason that some of the data that we collect will be in partnership with pharmaceutical companies.
If this provision is brought on to the statute book, the Government will shoot themselves in the foot. We should not be able to capitalise on the commercial value of some of the information that we jointly share with pharmaceutical and other interests. The Government need to reconsider exactly how that is done. There is a real risk of brinkmanship between Government and the pharmaceutical industry, with the pharmaceutical companies threatening to leave the country, and the Government saying, "We can go a little further". It is an unhealthy state of affairs with regard to good promotion of some of the best examples of science in our society which are clearly of benefit in the long term to the National Health Service.
I give an illustration to the Minister. I am one of the authors of a little paper which will be published tomorrow in the Lancet. My group has demonstrated a genetic polymorphism which seems to be associated with failure of in vitro fertilisation. If you have this polymorphism it seems that your embryos are unlikely to implant. We need to carry out larger studies to confirm it, but the finding was sufficient for the peer reviewers to grant it at least a preliminary paper in the Lancet. It is of immense commercial importance. Clearly, if you have this genetic polymorphism there is no point in going through repeated IVF cycles. You will be wasting money. Moreover, we might be able to treat this without gene therapy because you need to get the protein in the uterus for a very short period of time.
The obvious people to develop this protein must be the pharmaceutical industry because it will have the proteinomics at hand. Undoubtedly, if we are to look for a therapy we shall want to go into partnership with it. Where would be the intellectual property? What would happen if, in order to gain a bigger database, we want next year to look at the samples harvested from the 10,000 IVF patients whom we have treated in the past? The fact is that we should not be able to use that information; and that would be detrimental to patients who are infertile. Exactly the same argument pertains in relation to any other disease—heart disease, cancer, or whatever it may be.

397
I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter. I feel so strongly about the issue that, were the noble Earl to divide the House, while I am not sure that I would go through the Lobby with him, I would find it difficult to support the Government on this issue.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 54A. Although the Minister narrowed down subsections (1) and (2) at an earlier stage, they still give him or any or his successors very wide powers. Subsection (1) refers to,
"prohibiting or restricting … NHS patient information for the purposes of … marketing or other promotional activities which he considers" —
not which some independent authority considers—
"to be contrary to the economic or financial interests of the health service".
The Bill does not say so, but those provisions relate to the relatively new strategy adopted by drug companies of using data collected from pharmacists to micro-target doctors who are not using their drugs. The Department of Health fears that that may drive up costs in the health service. A priori, that may seem to have some logic, but it is too early to tell and the Department of Health seems to have made no attempt to quantify or to prove its case
Given that the NHS devotes less than £5 million a year to informing doctors about what they should prescribe, while the pharmaceutical industry spends £270 million on promoting its products, the department may well have a point. However, the power taken is a very large nutcracker to crack what may well be a rather small nut. No Secretary of State should be given such an implement. If the department is concerned about the potential costs to the health service of such micro-targeting, it can take other measures to encourage doctors to prescribe effectively. An example might be the Prodigy system, in which computerised advice is available on the best course of action in any particular case.
To change my metaphor, we have a problem of babies and bathwater. My amendment addresses that. As we have heard, the information collected from pharmacists can be put to positive use, such as to identify where doctors need to update their prescribing habits. Because that information is collected, it is then also available to researchers for the benefit of the wider community. Our amendment would provide that any such regulation must not inhibit research for medical purposes or the publication and dissemination of the results of such research. We have serious doubts about that part of the clause. At the least, the provisions must in no way restrict such analysis and its publication.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I do not wish to comment directly on the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Others have spoken eloquently about this part of the Bill. I have some sympathy with the view that subsections (1) and (2) are probably unnecessary. I remain to be convinced that the financial costs to the NHS of omitting them would be significant.
398
Amendment No. 54A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has application not only to subsections (1) and (2), but also to the provisions dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State to allow research to be pursued even on identifiable data. I shall return to that when we consider later amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the pharmaceutical industry has been caused serious difficulties by vandalism to its property and to its workforce. It does not need more difficulties caused by the Bill. Current and future patients need new drugs to fight diseases and medical conditions. It will not be of benefit to this country if the pharmaceutical industry moves to countries with fewer problems.
Lord Patel: My Lords, my comments do not relate specifically to subsection (1), although they have some bearing on it. I shall speak to Amendment No. 54A and some of the other issues in the Bill.
As many have said, the powers given in the clause and the ways in which they are interpreted and used will be of enormous importance for medical research in the UK. At the risk of repeating what has been said in earlier debates, despite the wise exemptions for some types of research and statistics in the Data Protection Act 1998, medical research involving personal data has always raised special problems. Uncertainty over the law on confidence has left doctors, nurses and researchers unsure about the acceptability of what they need to do, and important research has been delayed or limited in its scope as various NHS bodies and individual doctors try to work out for themselves what should and should not he done.
The medical research community welcomes the clause as a way of putting medical research and statistics on a proper footing. Any responsible researcher would agree that more needs to be done to make the public aware of how medical information is used and to obtain people's express consent when feasible. However, as has been mentioned, in some cases that is not possible, such as in large surveys involving thousands of people. GPs often need the support of specially recruited research nurses to identify and help to contact people to ask whether they agree to participate. The legality of that has been questioned.
Another often cited example is cancer registries. In this country we need better information about the prevalence of cancer and survival rates across different districts and socio-economic and ethnic groups and to monitor the effectiveness of new measures against cancer. Where it is vital to be able to detect a 5 per cent change in cancer rates, the provision of information has to be obligatory. If statistics were recorded only after doctors sought permission, the difficulty of comparing between regions and groups would make it impossible to establish how healthcare could be improved. We would have good records of cancer among those cared for by well organised, diligent doctors—and blind spots where health professionals were overstretched.

399
I realise that the Government intend to provide better public information. Once a better IT system is developed for the NHS, that will be less of a problem, but it will be some time before that happens.
It wrong to believe that making the regulatory process as restrictive and strict as possible is in the patients' interests. Patients want good use to be made of NHS data to improve treatment and for confidentiality and consent to be given a high priority. The Government's task is to balance both those demands.
The body advising on regulation needs not only to take account of the arguments of legal and ethical principles, but to be well advised on the practicalities of communication and information management in day-to-day NHS practice. The process by which regulations will be made has not been properly dealt with. It is not clear whether the regulations will specify the circumstances, safeguards and checks that will govern each type of data processing or individual research projects. The latter seems to invite more bureaucracy than is needed to ensure that the public interest is protected, as individual projects will already have been scrutinised by an ethics committee.
As the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report on cancer research noted, the time needed to secure approval for a study from several different bodies is already a real barrier for those developing new studies into the causes and treatment of cancer. We should take care not to create new barriers.
The clause has the potential to reduce delays and wasted time by making absolutely clear what is and is not acceptable. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us that the regulatory process will reduce, or at least not increase, the time and bureaucracy involved in properly assessing and supervising research.
The Government have already agreed the need for expert, representative advice on the regulations that should be drawn up. If this body had a wider remit of issuing advice on the detail of how information should be used or on specific issues in individual projects, it could play a valuable role in raising standards and strengthening accountability. In supporting the clause, I urge the Minister to consider the principles of the amendment. I look forward to his response.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, although I am new to these issues, I should like to intervene briefly in relation to the arguments made by my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Jenkin of Roding. I shall not attempt to repeat the arguments that they and others have put so forcefully tonight. However, I want to ask the Minister whether he can explain the anomaly which I believe the power to make regulations would introduce between the NHS and the private practice of medicine.
I cannot quite see what is the advantage of preventing drug companies and others gaining information from the NHS that they would still be able
400
to obtain, as I understand it, from private hospitals or private patients. The only consequence of that would be to drive the introduction and innovation of new medicines away from healthcare under the NHS and into the private sector.
If the Government are driven by ethical considerations about the use of patient information, why would not those apply as equally to the private sector as they do to the NHS? Would not it be anomalous for the regulations to be restricted to one sector only? However, as I am not sure that the ethical arguments are the overwhelming ones in this respect, I believe that that is not a strong argument to use against the arguments put forward by my noble friends.
Equally, if the argument concerns the driving up of costs in the NHS because of the supposition of targeted marketing, it is rather difficult to understand that the best way to reduce the cost of drugs in the NHS is by preventing drug companies carrying out effective research and marketing their products to consultants. There must be far better ways to ensure that consultants have effective information about the relative cost-effectiveness of different drugs that do not involve the damage that would be done to the industry by restricting access to that information and, indeed, by restricting the free marketing of information about new drugs to consultants.
Therefore, I am at a loss to understand, in a way that can be defended, what the motivation is and why it would be beneficial to treat the NHS in a different way from private practice. I wonder whether, in his reply, the Minister can respond to those points.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this clause was discussed very fully in Committee. I was not able to be present on that occasion as I was not well. However, I believe that the Government's position was virtually destroyed then by a number of noble Lords who knew from their own direct experience and expertise how wrong it was. To that has now been added what my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said about the report of the committee which, I understand, has been published.
The report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee, also referred to in Committee, was the most significant matter. It was hugely damaging. It said that the clause should be removed. In spite of the fact that that was the view of that very important committee, which your Lordships set up in order to assist the Government in appreciating what could and could not be done, the Minister said in Committee that he would say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that it was essential for the clause to be accepted and enacted into law. I hope that he will not reiterate that sentiment this evening. There have been an extraordinary number of wise contributions which should put the Government on the spot on this matter.
I know that the Prime Minister believes that Parliament does not matter very much and that strong government means deciding what one is going to do and then doing it. However, I believe that we are

401
talking about clear threats—factual threats and not threats that are a matter of opinion. They are threats to the liberty of the individual, to the health of individuals, to the doctor/patient relationship, to an industry that is the jewel in the crown of this country, and to research in industry and in our universities, which are renowned for their research all over the world.
In a humble way, for some years I chaired the local research ethics committee in the hospital where the noble Lord, Lord Patel, operates. I learned then from experience how much the universities and industry depend in their research on anonymised information. It is crucial to them.
My noble friend Lord Howe has again set out the problems very succinctly. I believe that if the Government do not remove this clause from the Bill, it will be of extreme importance that during the election campaign the public become aware of what is happening. I am sure that a number of people will make the matter plain. At present, the public do not appreciate the issues because the matter was not discussed properly in the Commons and, during the previous stage of the Bill, it was arranged that we would discuss it here at midnight. For the sake of their own skin, quite apart from the benefit to the whole nation, it is important that the Government pay attention to this matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as noble Lords have indicated, Amendment No. 51 seeks to delete subsections (1) and (2) from the clause. I have, of course, listened with a great deal of interest to the views expressed by noble Lords on this very important part of the Bill.
One matter which perhaps has not been mentioned is that in the course of debate both here and in another place the Government introduced a number of amendments in order to deal with various fears expressed about the scope of this part of the clause and to introduce additional safeguards. I want to return to that point in a moment.
Clearly, it is important that I set out the reasons why the Government have introduced this clause and this particular part of Clause 68 into the Bill. It arose as a result of a judicial review brought against the department by a company called Source Informatics. The company was subsequently taken over by a company called IMS. In 1997, both Source and IMS began to collect information from GPs and pharmacies about doctors' prescribing in order to build up databases. As Source said in its evidence, the intention was that the database would be used primarily by pharmaceutical companies to allow them to target more precisely promotions and communications concerning their products.
The department was concerned on two counts: first, that targeted marketing would increase the pressure on GPs to prescribe higher cost medicines unnecessarily; and, secondly, that passing on information about the medicines prescribed to a patient, even though the patient was not identified, was a breach of confidence.
402
The department sent the document to GPs and pharmacies, warning of the legal risks and strongly discouraging disclosures on policy grounds. Source sought judicial review of that document.
Although the department's case was initially upheld, the Court of Appeal decided that no breach of confidence, or, indeed, breach of the Data Protection Act, was involved. The court commented that, if the department continued to view such schemes as operating against the public interest, it must take further powers in what the court described as,
"this already heavily regulated area",
to control or limit their effect.
The department remained concerned. Discussions were held with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and IMS to explore those concerns in more detail. From those discussions it became clear that there was a significant gap between the department's views and those of the ABPI about what was acceptable. IMS was reluctant to enter into any kind of agreement with the department for what I would say was an entirely understandable reason—that it could find itself disadvantaged in relation to any competitors who were not bound by such an agreement.
We decided to take powers in primary legislation. We took the view that it was important that nothing should be done without proper consultation. It was particularly important that, while enabling the Government to deal with activities that were not in the interests of the NHS, we should not inadvertently restrict activities that were—I stress this—innocuous or beneficial. We therefore included in the Bill a broad enabling power to prohibit or restrict the processing of information about patients or derived from information about patients. However, that was subject to the important safeguard that before any regulations were made the Secretary of State would have to consult bodies representing the interests of those who were affected. As an enabling power, that provision in the clause would have no effect in itself and no new restrictions on the use of information could exist until regulations were made.
I understand that the breadth of the clause's powers caused concern. In Committee in another place we responded to the concern of those who thought that the powers might be used, for example, to prevent independent scrutiny of the NHS by restricting the power to the use of patient information for commercial purposes.
In response to continued expressions of concern about the range of activities that might be covered by the phrase "commercial purposes" and—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy—taking into account suggestions from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, we introduced further amendments in Committee in this House. They made it clear that the power could be used only in relation to patient information arising from services provided by or under the NHS and only where the use of such information is for marketing and other promotional activity that the Secretary of State considers to be

403
contrary to the economic or financial interests of the NHS. We also accepted the Select Committee's recommendation that regulations under Clause 68(1) should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Select Committee has stated that those changes,
"fully meet the Committee's recommendations".
I am aware of the ABPI's concerns on this matter. While it continues to comment on the clause's drafting, I am satisfied that there are no amendments that would satisfy the ABPI and provide the powers that we believe are needed. We do not believe that it is right that information that has been obtained in the course of the provision of NHS services should be used against the economic or financial interests of the NHS. That is why I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, that that provision is confined to NHS information. We believe that the NHS has a right to reserve the most detailed information about doctors' prescribing habits, for example, for the use of its own professional advisers, who can provide independent and impartial advice. That is better than enabling the pharmaceutical industry to target its considerable marketing resources on those GPs whose particular prescribing patterns appear to the industry to be the most likely to lead to increased sales of its products. In short, we do not think that it is right that the NHS should hand to the industry what some companies have described as, "the ultimate marketing tool".
I turn to the joint working group. The use of NHS information by the pharmaceutical industry is not all bad; quite the contrary. We have been working with the industry in the context of the task force that was set up last year by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and which I chaired jointly with Tom McKillop. Part of that discussion was about how the industry could secure better access to NHS data for pharmaceutical research and development purposes. We believe that there is significant further potential for the NHS and the industry to work together to develop data sources that will significantly improve the quality of data that will be available for research into medicines across the whole range of pharmaceutical issues—health economics and outcome research, clinical trials evaluation, epidemiology, safety, education and concordance. Developing that potential will benefit the NHS because it will facilitate the better clinical and cost-effective use of medicines and the industry in its search for improved use of medicines and the development of new medicines.
We have recently had considerable discussions with the ABPI about the clause's intent. We have been able to clear up a number of misconceptions. I confirm that the clause relates only to the data used to support marketing and promotional activity, not to marketing and promotional activity per se, which are already the subject of separate regulation and codes of practice.
I also make it clear that the clause does not extend to information that does not derive from health service activity. In particular, it does not extend to information about the medicines that pharmacies purchase from wholesalers, which is one of the two
404
main sources of data for marketing purposes to the industry. The other main source is data from a sample of GP practices, such as the general practice research database, which give indications of national and sometimes regional trends. Those data are also used for other purposes, such as health economics and epidemiological studies. Those databases are longstanding—we have no quarrel with them and do not wish to stop them. We do not intend or wish to use the powers in subsection (1) to control the use of that kind of sample data to inform marketing and promotional purposes.
The activities of Source Informatics brought a new dimension to the data being obtained. That is what we wish to address. I am as committed as any noble Lord to the value of the research-based industry to the United Kingdom. That is why I chaired the joint task force. I recognise the value of the industry's contribution in terms of employment and the huge investment that it makes to this country. It is responsible for 23 per cent of all commercial R&D investment in the United Kingdom.
I am also pleased to say that, in line with the spirit that we established working together in the task force—I believe that that was given a huge boost by the work that we did together—we are committed to working with the industry to see whether we can reach agreement on what use can be made of NHS information for marketing purposes. I give an undertaking to noble Lords that, subject to there being no area other than the use of medicines which was causing concern—there is none at the moment—we will not commence Clause 67(1) unless and until discussions with the industry have either reached a conclusion or it has become clear that, within a reasonable period, no agreement is likely to be possible.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister referred to Clause 67(1), did he mean to refer to what is now Clause 68(1)?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl pulls me up and, as ever, he is quite right to do so. However, that makes no difference to the point that I was making.
The industry understands our concerns even if it does not agree with them. I am willing to work together with it to seek a mutually acceptable arrangement which will, if necessary, be underpinned by regulations made under this clause. I should, of course, bring the results of those discussions and other consultations to the House when bringing forward any regulations.
I turn to Amendment No. 54A. This amendment would add to the requirement to consult before making regulations under this clause a requirement for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the effect of the proposed regulations would not inhibit medical research or the publication or dissemination of the results of such research.

405
I turn first to the effect of this amendment on the regulation-making power under subsection (1). As is clear from the wording of this part of the clause, no regulations could be made under subsection (l) which would directly inhibit medical research or the publication or dissemination of the results of such research. The power is clearly focused on the use of information for marketing or other promotional activities which would be contrary to the economic or financial interests of the NHS.
I have seen it argued that use of the power could affect medical research indirectly. That has been suggested in your Lordships' House this evening. The argument seems to be that some information is collected for both marketing and research purposes and that, if it were not collected for marketing purposes, it would not he collected at all. In considering any regulations which might be made under subsection (1), we should certainly want to take into account any arguments which might be presented along those lines. But I cannot accept that we should be barred from making any regulations that might have the effect of inhibiting medical research. If I were to do that, I would have to accept that economic or financial damage could be done to the interests of the NHS without let or hindrance, provided only that the information was also used for research purposes.
The early part of this clause is not nearly as wide ranging as some noble Lords have contended. It applies only to NHS information. There can be no restriction on the use of information which is not derived from NHS activity. Secondly, it applies only to the uses of information and cannot be used to restrict marketing or other promotional activities as such, only the use of NHS information in connection with such activity. Thirdly, any marketing or other promotional activities must be contrary to the economic or financial interests of the NHS before the powers can be used.
The powers are also surrounded by safeguards: the requirement to consult bodies representing those likely to be affected; and a requirement that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that noble Lords will take note of what I have said and that the amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will clarify one matter for me. As I understand it, this evening has been the first time that we have learnt that the underlying fear that the Government have had is the increased GP costs in prescribing. That is the essence of why the clause has been drawn up.
Is the pharmaceutical industry not able at the moment to target GPs? I do not believe that is the case. Will the noble Lord confirm also that generic prescribing has increased at the most phenomenal rate when the pharmaceutical industry has already been able to target GPs? The line that the Government are
406
taking diminishes the intelligence and professionalism of GPs in supposing that they cannot resist those overtures.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are a number of issues there. First, there is no question that the cost of drugs over the years has risen in the NHS. Generally, we should welcome it because that is a reflection of the power of medicines and drugs to do good.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, but the Minister will agree that it is the percentage of generic drugs that has increased much more than the total budget.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am being reminded that this is Report stage. I should simply say to the noble Baroness that there was a problem two years ago with a huge rise in generic costs. That was partly due to the closure of one generic manufacturer and then a shock was caused throughout the supply chain. As a result of that, we introduced a maximum price scheme, which I am glad to say has pulled back that cost. We are committed to having discussions about the long-term future of the generic industry.
The point that I was going to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is that per se, where it is justified, there cannot be an objection to rising drug costs to the NHS because per se, that will often be doing good, and we have said as much to the research-based industry. The concern here is about the use of that aggregated data from GPs then to influence their prescribing patterns and for themunnecessarily to prescribe more expensive drugs. That is what we are aiming to deal with.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am grateful for the powerful contributions made in support of my amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, had it right. Even if we were to imagine, for the sake of argument, that there is some substance to the position that the Minister has just outlined—although I repeat, I do not believe there is—the provisions in this clause represent a huge sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. The damage that would be done would be out of all proportion to any possible costs to the NHS arising from inappropriate pharmaceutical promotion. I agree with my noble friend that 100 per cent of these are very dangerous provisions.
The Minister mentioned Source Informatics and IMS. Perhaps I may put the record straight in relation to that case. The Minister indicated that he had been unable to enter into any kind of agreement with IMS. My understanding is that discussions held by the Department of Health with IMS prior to December 2000 were not consultations either about a possible agreement or about possible legislation. They were about the department's withdrawal of its Petition to

407
the House of Lords against the Appeal Court decision in the judicial review and about the IMS's prescription data services and data collection methodology.
Even so, at the time that Clause 68 was introduced without warning into the health Bill, IMS had already indicated its willingness to review its procedures further in the light of the Department of Health's concerns and understood that discussions were still continuing on that basis.
Department of Health officials visited IMS's offices on 19th March 2001 when IMS briefed them on its services and their use by the industry, by medical researchers, patient groups and other bodies. That visit was not part of the consultation process between IMS and the department but an information-gathering exercise for the department.
As regards the Source Informatics case itself, the argument used in the Court of Appeal was to try to depict the statistical data collected as a breach of patient confidentiality. That points up how utterly disingenuous the department's position was.
The Minister said that in his view information obtained in the course of NHS services should not be used against the economic or financial interests of the NHS. I say again to the Minister that that approach is wholly misconceived. First, the NHS itself benefits from the data that are produced by commercial means. Secondly, I believe that the marketing of products by pharmaceutical companies is an entirely legitimate activity. Thirdly, doctors tend to be highly cost conscious, and increasingly so. But, in any event, as I said earlier, cheap prescribing should not ever be equated with good prescribing.
I note the Minister's assurances. They are welcome as far as they go. I do not think they go far enough. At this hour, I shall not press this amendment. However, this is such an important matter that I shall certainly wish to return to it at Third Reading. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 54, I must inform the House that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 54A which stands in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Barker.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 72, line 25, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
"(9) There shall be a committee to be known as the Disclosure of Patient Information Advisory Committee (and referred to in this section as "the Committee") to give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his function under this section.
(9A) Schedule (Disclosure of Patient Inhumation Advisory Committee) to this Act shall have effect with respectto the constitution of the Committee and the other matters there mentioned.
(9B) Where the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations pursuant to this section or is considering existing regulations in accordance with subsection (6)(a), he shall refer to the Committee
408
the proposals (in the form of draft regulations or otherwise) or, in the case of his carrying out his function pursuant to subsection (6)(a), any proposed revocation of. or changes to, existing regulations, and at the same time he shall furnish the Committee with such information as it may reasonably require for the proper discharge of its function pursuant to subsection (9C) below.
(9C) That Committee shall consider any matters referred to it by the Secretary of State under subsection (9B) above, and shall make a report to the Secretary of State containing such recommendations with regard to the subject matter of the proposals as the Committee thinks appropriate.
(9D) If after receiving a report of the Committee, the Secretary of State lays before Parliament any regulations or draft regulations which comprise the whole or any part of the subject matter of the proposals referred to the Committee, he shall lay with the regulations or draft regulations a copy of the Committee's report and a statement showing—

(a) the extent (if any) to which he has, in framing the regulations, given effect to the Committee's recommendations; and

(b) in so far as effect has not been given to them, his reasons why not.

(9E) In the case of any regulations laid before Parliament at a time when Parliament is not sitting, the requirements of subsection (9D) above shall be satisfied as respects either House of Parliament if a copy of the report and statement there referred to are laid before that House not later than the second day on which the House sits after the laying of the regulations.
(9F) Nothing in this section shall require any proposals in respect of regulations to be referred to the Committee if—

(a) it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency of the matter it is inexpedient so to refer them; or

(b) the Committee has agreed that they shall not be so referred.

(9G) Where by virtue only of subsection (9F)(a) above the Secretary of State makes regulations without proposals in respect of them having been referred, then, unless the Committee agrees that this subsection shall not apply, he shall refer the regulations to the Committee as soon as practicable after making them.
(9H) Where the Secretary of State has referred proposals to the Committee, he may make the proposed regulations before the Committee has made its report only ifafter the reference it appears to him that by reason of the urgency of the matter it is expedient to do so.
(9I) Where regulations are made before a report of the Committee has been made, the Committee shall consider them and make a report to the Secretary of State containing such recommendations with regard to the regulations as the Committee thinks appropriate; and a copy of any report made to the Secretary of State on the regulations shall be laid by him before each House of Parliament together, if the report contains recommendations, with a statement—

(a) of the extent (if any) to which the Secretary of State proposes to give effect to the recommendations; and

(b) in so far as he does not propose to give effect to them, of his reasons why not."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 54, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 59, tabled in my name.
This part of the clause is not about anonymised data but the much more problematic and far-reaching issue of the use of confidential patient information. It is about the rights of an individual to confidentiality as against the public interest need for health data to be collected and analysed, sometimes without the explicit consent of the patient.
This is a developing area in which we are moving from a period in which there is what has been described as "imputed consent", whereby it was assumed that

409
patients were happy for their information to be thus collected, to a system that must be more consensual, transparent and open. We accept that action needs to be taken now. The Data Protection Act comes into full force in this area in October. In any event it is clear that under common law, action could be taken by patients against doctors at any time. The fact that that is the case clearly prompted the GMC to warn doctors of this situation, with the result that information to the disease registries started to dry up. This is clearly an area which must be clarified.
There is still much debate on how we best strike a balance between individual rights and the public interest in this area. I have no doubt that this is an area in which we shall see significant changes over the next few years. However, I am certain that no instant solution would emerge next month if we were to knock out this clause now, to bring back another after the election. I am equally certain that this is not an issue, not least because of its fundamental importance, that we could possibly place simply in the hands of any Secretary of State. Indeed, it is a complex matter. At the very least, he or she will need help. We need to know that he or she will not act in a way that we might not see as being in the public interest.
This is simply not an area in which it could ever be appropriate to give such wide powers to the Secretary of State. That is why we propose in the amendment to establish a statutory advisory committee to advise and assist the Secretary of State in this matter. We are certain that this must be on the face of the Bill. We are pleased that our proposal has met wide support from those who are concerned about this clause, whether their concerns were for the rights of the patient or among others who felt that it potentially restricted research. I pay tribute to the King's Fund for its enormous assistance to me in this matter.
We propose the establishment of a statutory advisory committee which does not have to sit muzzled in the background as an earlier incarnation, proposed in the other place, just might have done. It consists of representatives of patients' groups, clinicians, medical researchers, health service researchers and others. The Secretary of State must refer any proposed regulations to the committee and the committee must make recommendations on them. If, after receiving the report of the committee, the Secretary of State lays before Parliament any regulations, he must accompany them with a copy of the committee's report and a statement showing the extent to which he has given effect to the committee's recommendations. If in any respect he has not given effect to its recommendations, he must give his reasons for his actions. The model for this committee is the statutory Social Security Advisory Committee.
There is much to be done to reform the way that patient information is handled in the NHS and to promote wide public debate on the use of such information. In the mean time, action needs to be taken now to ensure that progress is made in this area, but not at the expense of giving the Secretary of State
410
powers that are simply not appropriate. The amendment is designed to help to move things along. I therefore commend it to the House. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I rise with two purposes, which are probably rather more closely connected than may appear at first sight: first, to offer my warm support to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Northover; and, secondly, to express further misgivings about Clause 68 as a whole. In the negotiations which might accompany a hypothetical end of the Parliament, those two concerns might possibly become linked.
My noble friends have had a very good Bill. On anything to do with health they have hit the nail on the head, and I follow that. But where we deal with the drafting of legislation, we deal with the relationship between the executive and the courts, and the implications stretch far wider than the field of health. It is a matter in which I have taken a fairly longstanding interest. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of this House has illustrated that, to an extent, this is a House matter. I therefore want to express a few thoughts on that theme as well as on my noble friend's amendment.
As she said, my noble friend based her amendment on the model of the Social Security Advisory Committee, about which I know. It is an extremely valuable committee. First, it ensures that when regulations are placed before this House, we have before us an intelligible account of their exact meaning. That is a far greater blessing than those who do not deal regularly with regulation can appreciate. Secondly, we also have a full brief of the implications and what the case for and against them may be, which is a great asset. We also have a clear explanation which can be, and regularly is, picked up in the press. When something particularly controversial is done by regulation in the field of social security, the press get to know about it. If there deserves to be a public debate, that public debate begins. It is that, rather than any particular pursuit of power by the Department of Social Security, which means that the debate on the regulation-making power has become so concentrated in the field of social security.
That means that anything done by means of regulation with this sort of committee in the background is, as the phrase goes, "Not a thing done in a corner". I should say that the original context of that phrase was that it was applied to the execution of King Charles I.
The downside of this is that it does not stop the raw exercise of power by a government with a disciplined whipped majority, no matter what their political colour may be. In fact, it is the classic political half loaf and as such it probably has a great deal to commend it. But it does not deal with the wider context which, as the Minister clearly illustrated in reply to the previous amendment, begins with the case of Source Informatics. The clause is introduced in response to the Government's defeat in a judicial review case.

411
When I was new to this House 12 or 13 years ago, there was a pamphlet around in Whitehall circles bearing the title The Judge Over Your Shoulder. That perception has not altogether disappeared from Whitehall. In this case, the judge has been over the shoulder of the Department of Health and the drafting of the clause is clearly a reaction to having lost a judicial case. In those circumstances, it is natural that there should be a desire to fireproof legislation; to draft it in such a way that it shall not be vulnerable to judicial review.
According to the department's evidence to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee, that is the way in which the department was approaching the clause. In Question 30, the chairman asked its representative whether he thought the powers should be more clearly defined by reference to criteria on the face of the Bill. He received the reply:
"The point that the Minister made then [in Committee] was that the more one attempted to define on the face of the Bill the circumstances in which the power could be used, the more likely it was that the commercial interests who would be affected by any regulations made under the power would seek to challenge the interpretation of the statute in the courts and to challenge whether the regulations actually fell within the scope of the power … that the more one attempted to define things, the greater the risk of judicial review".
In fact, it is dangerous to define the limits of the Executive's powers because someone might argue about them in court. That is a reaction which I regard as natural but I do not regard it as one of those things which is natural and therefore good.
Professor Sir William Wade, the leading expert on judicial review, has comments to make on this approach to legislation. Sir William states:
"If merely because an act says that a minister may 'make such order as he sees fit', or may do something 'if he is satisfied' as to some fact, the court were to allow him to do as he liked, a wide door would be opened to the abuse of power and the rule of law would cease to operate. It is a cardinal axiom, accordingly, that every power has legal limits, however wide the language of the empowering act … Although lawyers appearing for government departments often argue that some act confers unfettered discretion, they are guilty of constitutional blasphemy. Unfettered discretion cannot exist where the rule of law reigns".
I have slight reservations about the concept of constitutional blasphemy but I can understand what Sir William is getting at: power to be controlled must be defined.
The Minister is trying to argue that power is defined as to its field. I take its point, though the definition is not necessarily as tight as it might be. The way in which it is not defined is in relation to its purpose. The purposes of the power are not entirely clear; in fact, they may be used more or less in any way the Minister likes to do pretty well anything the Minister likes. The desire is to have vires so general that no power can be ultra vires. If the power is to do anything you like, nothing done under that power can possibly be ultra vires. I can understand the temptation, but departments in Whitehall which can resist anything except temptation need a little learning.
412
The matter was raised again at question 72 of the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee. The department's representative was asked whether anything that might be done under the clause might possibly he contrary to the Human Rights Act. It received the reply:
"My difficulty is that I am not sure yet whether there is a policy to set out any criteria. Obviously in the light of whatever information is given on that, I can address the Human Rights Act issue".
In other words, "We do not know what we want to do but it will be legal anyway".
I have reservations about that as an approach to the rule of law. This is what I describe as a Cambyses clause. Cambyses, King of Persia, had a law which allowed him to do whatever he liked. He took advantage of it to allow himself to marry his sister. I believe that this is a Cambyses power. I shall not take your Lordships through the wording of the clause, but it is in every part of it. For example, take the power in subsection (4)(a)(iii) which provides for the disclosure of patient information,
"to a prescribed person on behalf of any such person as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii)".
Those of your Lordships who remember the debates on the morning after pill may wonder whether that power could be used under a government of a different political colour to give information to parents about their children's contraceptive habits. That is a hundred miles from the intention of the clause, but I wonder whether it is within the wording. It tends to show how much danger there is in wording which is as open as this.
There is a power to create criminal offences by regulation in subsection (2)(c). That is something that we set our faces against in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—all honour to him for it—joined us and upheld what we did, and I am most grateful to him for that.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in paragraph 25 of its report remarks:
"The Committee suggested that criteria by reference to which this power should be used should be stated on the face of the Bill so that the House could have the opportunity of debating whether they are right criteria and whether this power should be granted. The Department responded that the more one attempted to define on the face of the Bill the circumstances in which the power could be used, the more likely it was that the commercial interests who would be affected by any regulations made under the power would seek to challenge the interpretation of the statute in the courts and to challenge whether the regulations actually fell within the scope of the power, as distinct from any challenge that they might make as to reasonableness".
The committee concluded:
"We do not find this argument convincing as justification for an over-wide enabling power".
I have considerable sympathy with the committee in its conclusion. Ministers regularly try to present the conflict as one between Parliament and the courts, but it need not always be like that. We need not always be gamekeepers; Parliament has a poaching power as well. Sometimes we should consider whether it is Parliament and the courts versus the executive. It has

413
been so in the past, and on occasion it could be so again. The courts can look after themselves most of the time. But, if one remembers the question, "How many divisions has the Pope?", every now and then the courts need the help of the parliamentary arm. I wonder whether this is such an occasion.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation after that tour de force by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I should like to take us back to the second part of the clause. If your Lordships believe that the first part is contentious, the second part raises all kinds of anxieties among patient groups, researchers and professional organisations. I shall not repeat the reasons why I believe that it is important to retain Clause 68 if we are not seriously to damage certain forms of research, particularly so-called secondary research in which data about patients obtained some time in the past can be used to test new research ideas today.
I should express my interest both as vice-president of the Academy of Medical Sciences, which has an interest in the research which can be pursued, and also as scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities, whose membership includes bodies concerned with Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and cystic fibrosis and the cancer charities. They are keenly interested in promoting all research which can bring them relief. Clause 68 will help, in that it provides a mechanism for such proper and necessary research to be pursued, while at the same time ensuring that patients are respected and their trust maintained.
Striking a balance between the necessary respect for patients' rights and the need for research which will benefit future patients and the wider public is not easy, and perhaps that is the reason why this debate is so important. However, the clause as it stands is far from perfect. Therefore I should like to speak in favour of the principles raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and outlined in Amendments 54 and 54A. That is because of a number of fears that I and others have in the way in which the clause could operate. Here I seek reassurance from the Minister on a number of matters which I have raised with him.
There is no doubt that a strict interpretation of the Data Protection Act and the fears of medical researchers about how the General Medical Council's guidance might affect them will drive out research from which we could all potentially gain. If that research is prohibited by the application of what is in effect a legal sledgehammer—we have heard a great deal about sledgehammers today—all of us will lose out in the long run. Of course we must have safeguards and we must not allow the Alder Hey type of activity to happen. But equally, we must not prevent perfectly respectable, highly desirable—indeed, essential—research which no one in their right mind would find objectionable from being pursued.
Will Clause 68 provide the safeguards while allowing the research to go on? I have some anxiety about that, because although the clause is designed for
414
that purpose I fear that it may perversely inhibit the very research it is designed to permit. Imagine a researcher wishing to investigate, for example, whether cancer of the bladder or prostate is triggered by certain infections. Indeed, that has recently been hinted at. That can be tested by searching for traces of the infection in blood samples taken over many years from patients with those diseases, many of whom may have died or be untraceable. So consent to do the research is impossible. That is a catch-22 situation: the research cannot be done without consent but consent cannot be obtained.
Therefore application will have to be made to the Secretary of State through this clause. He will then seek the advice of his expert committee. There will be a period of public consultation. If that is accepted it will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. I would be surprised if the whole process could be achieved in under 12 months.
If one couples that with the fact that the Medical Research Council reckons that it may have 500 or so research projects of this type which will need to be processed in the first few months, your Lordships will easily see how the committee could become bogged down, research would grind to a halt and researchers would lose any desire to continue their research. So can this clause be made to work for the good of everyone? I believe that there are ways. I have had the opportunities of discussing these with my noble friend.
The GMC has recently provided some helpful criteria by which judgments could be made about the acceptability of research proposals. The MRC have accepted certain categories of non-contentious research which could be grouped. Using those, and taking advantage of the opinions of research ethics committees on the research should allow some faster tracking while maintaining the interests of patients.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say clearly that these types of arrangements will be incorporated into the regulations. This is what I believe is intended by the wording of Amendment No. 54A. We would benefit from having such a provision in the Bill. If it is not in the Bill then we need the reassurances that we have sought.
Furthermore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to say what the composition of the advisory committee will be and whether it will reflect a broadly-based representation, not only from the patients and their carers but also from across the research community. I hope he will give us these reassurances because without them I very much fear that some important research will not get off the ground.
Earl Howe: My Lords, looking at the amendment on its own merits I am happy to add my support to it. I say that even though, as I shall explain more fully when we debate Amendment No. 58, I am deeply opposed to the clause in principle. The amendment makes a bad clause slightly better. I hope that the Government will agree to it. If the clause is enacted, I take some comfort from the knowledge that there will be a statutory

415
advisory committee standing between the Secretary of State on one side and patients and doctors on the other.
The Government have already committed themselves to establishing such a committee. However, I should like to hear from the Minister on three counts. First, can he tell us anything about the composition of the committee? Secondly, what involvement will the committee have in the framing of regulations? Lastly, what reassurance can the Minister give that, notwithstanding the advisory nature of the committee, Ministers will in practice follow its recommendations?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Amendment No. 54 and the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 59, have two important aims. The first is to ensure that the Government receive authoritative and representative advice on any proposed use of the powers provided by Clause 68. The second is to ensure that the reasons for using those powers are documented and readily understood by Parliament. Those are clearly important aims and ones that we share. Although I have some reservations about the detail of the amendments, I accept the principle behind them.
The establishment of an expert group is something that the Government have already committed to in respect of the power provided by subsection (3) of the clause. We have continued to listen to arguments in favour of placing the body on a statutory footing and have concluded that that would appropriately reflect the significance of the clause and provide a clear signal of the importance we place on ensuring that the power it provides is used appropriately. It is therefore our intent to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to set up a statutory advisory committee.
It may be helpful if I say why I have some concerns about the amendment before us. First, the amendment removes the existing requirement to consult. We wish to ensure that all those who may be affected by regulations have an opportunity to voice any concerns. A single body will not be able to reflect the interests of all who may be affected. The requirement to consult already provided by subsection (9) is important and should not be lost.
Secondly, the amendment as written applies to all of Clause 68. As we well know, the clause has two distinct parts—subsection (1), which allows the use of patient information in limited circumstances to be regulated, and subsection (3), which allows the use of such information to be mandated in different, but still limited, circumstances. Subsection (1) is about the use of information for marketing and promotional purposes and whether any such activity would be contrary to the economic or financial interests of the NHS. The Government do not consider an advisory committee to be necessary when the issue there is one of regulating information use where the interests of the NHS are at stake. It is the power provided by subsection (3) that the Government believe warrants
416
the creation of a statutory advisory body and, as I have already indicated, that should sit alongside, not replace, the existing requirement to consult.
The third unwanted effect of the amendments might be to deprive an advisory body of the flexibility it will need to adapt its role as circumstances and requirements change. As we have explained at some length during the progress of the Bill, the power provided by subsection (3) is intended largely to provide transitional support for important activity until, and not beyond, the time when there is a reasonably practicable alternative way of sustaining the activity. While the advisory body will, in its first year, undoubtedly spend its time considering how the power provided should be used in subsequent years, the focus will need to be on the process of annual review required by the clause and the body will almost certainly develop a wider advisory role on confidentiality issues.
The amendment lists the bodies that should be represented on the committee. I think that that is a little restrictive. We would anticipate that all the bodies listed, and more—not least the Royal College of Nursing and the research community—would be involved on the committee and we would certainly expect the membership to be flexible. Finally, the detail relating to salaries and pensions set out in the schedule provided by Amendment No. 59 is probably unnecessary for an advisory body of this kind. As I have said, we have some problems with the detail of the amendment, but we intend to produce a government amendment at Third Reading that will create a statutory advisory body.
Both my noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me for more detailed information on how that body will be formed and how it will operate. Perhaps I may say to both noble Lords that we shall work with the General Medical Council and other interested groups to ensure that the body we create is well suited to its tasks. Its role will be to advise the Secretary of State on any proposed regulations. It will focus on the areas of most concern. It will have the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances to enhance rather than diminish the requirement to consult and the results of that consultation and advice will be made public.
I have held discussions with my noble friend Lord Turnberg about his particular concerns. I am happy to continue those discussions and I expect that the work of developing our ideas as regards consulting on the proposed regulations will pick up some of those concerns. However, it seems that we wish to see an advisory body that will strike the right balance—I do not hesitate to use that word—between the issues of patient consent and confidentiality on the one hand and the ever-present needs of the research community. That will not be an easy task, but it will be a very important one. As I have said, we shall want to work with the GMC and other interested groups to ensure that we establish a body that is well suited to its tasks.
The role of the GMC has been frequently commented on as the Bill has passed through this House. I should say that I am particularly grateful to

417
the GMC for its assistance in helping us to reach what I believe to be a solid position on this part of the clause. We certainly look forward to working with the council in the light of our eventual decisions.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his formidable tour de force, raised certain issues of general principle which, as he said, go a little beyond the issues that we usually discuss in health debates. Perhaps I may make a few comments to the noble Earl. First, he mentioned the role of the court. It is fair to say that the court did comment that if the department continued to view such schemes as operating against the public interest, it should or it might take further powers. I think that that is a fair point.
Secondly, the noble Earl helpfully gave notice of the points he wished to raise in relation to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The Government did respond to the points made by the committee. They responded by defining more narrowly the circumstances in which the first two parts of this clause can be used. Furthermore, they responded to the recommendation that the affirmative resolution procedure could be used. I think that we have taken close notice of what was said by the Select Committee.
So far as concerns the point made by Sir William, I do not think that there was any intent as regards denial of the issue of reasonableness. If one looks at the comment made in answer to question 30, to which the noble Earl referred, those comments were made as distinct from any challenge that might be made as regards reasonableness.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Sir William conceded that point in his initial remarks as a general point. His point was about the definition of the vires.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for clarifying that point.
This clause is clearly very important. It is controversial; it has caused concern and divisions of view within the health community; it is a difficult issue. If one takes the issue of consent balanced against research and the GMC guidelines, it has been very difficult indeed to come to a sensible conclusion and a sensible way forward. I believe that we have done that. In bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading, I hope that we shall introduce an additional safeguard which will provide noble Lords with an assurance that this will be operated properly and effectively.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, the report of the Select Committee on human genetic databases has now been in the Minister's possession for five weeks. Can he give an assurance that, in formulating the amendment that he is going to bring forward in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness today, he will take account of the very considerable advice which that, if I may say so—and excluding myself entirely
418
from this very—expert committee has given on the whole question of patient consent, patient in formation and the needs of research?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very happy to give that assurance.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am very pleased to hear the positive reply of the Minister. I look forward to seeing the precise wording of his proposals in the next few days. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54A not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must advise the House that if Amendment No. 55 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 due to pre-emption.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 59 not moved.]

Community Legal Service (Funding) (Counsel in Family Proceedings) Order 2001
9.38 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 20th March, be annulled (S.I. 2001/1077).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the Access to Justice Act 1999, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has a duty to consider three statutory factors in setting rates of pay for publicly funded work: first, the need to secure the provision of services by a sufficient number of competent persons; secondly, the cost to public funds; and, thirdly, the need to secure value for money. The noble and learned Lord has contended that there is no evidence at present to suggest that there are insufficient barristers undertaking publicly funded family work and that, in fact, the numbers trying to enter the profession are increasing. Indeed, this latter point is frequently made, but, of course, it does not follow that new entrants into the profession will be willing, under the new publicly funded rates, to continue to work in this area.
There are of course many aspects of family work: financial ancillary relief applications consequent upon divorce, private law proceedings relating to children and public law cases relating to children.
It is important to note the comments from the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law as to the levels of expertise required of, and the burdens placed upon, advocates in this field. In its report for the year 1999–2000 the board quoted from its 1998–99 report as follows:
"Children Act proceedings are non-adversarial and require particular skills from lawyers both in and out of court. Lawyers who do not possess those skills can cause both delay in the resolution of the case and increased costs due to the unnecessary prolongation of court hearings".
It cannot be stressed too much that the proper and efficient administration of justice in family cases requires that the work be undertaken by practitioners of skill and experience. These qualities are developed over time. Parents and spouses who are brought into contact with the courts in family law often find it a particularly stressful and anguished experience. Emotions frequently run high. Parties often show their most unreasonable side. Cases, moreover, are often highly complex. All these aspects underline the need for the experienced and skilled advocate to help litigants with sound and patient advice and skilled advocacy in order to guide them through stressful proceedings.
The scheme, which is incorporated in the Community Legal Service (Funding) (Counsel in Family Proceedings) Order 2001, and which has been recommended to your Lordships tonight by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on careful analysis, is not designed to achieve the aims to which I have already made reference. Most importantly, it is not designed to ensure the continuing provision of services in family work by barristers of proven competence, skill and experience.
The scheme is described as a graduated scheme. It is in reality nothing of the sort. It is a fixed price scheme where the same rate is to be paid regardless of the seriousness of the case. Compare this with the scheme for criminal fees. That is a truly graduated scheme where the rate payable is graduated according to the seriousness of the crime charged. In criminal work, the reality is that the more junior junior counsel will do the less serious work. Senior counsel will be remunerated at a higher level when they undertake the more serious criminal cases within the scheme.
In family work senior junior barristers almost inevitably have a succession of substantial cases which require considerable preparation. Under this scheme they will be paid the same rate as the most junior junior barrister undertaking a straightforward case. When the fee payable is translated into an hourly rate, it will be seen that, if senior junior barristers are to do the work properly, they will be paid in effect on a reducing scale having regard to the hours undertaken in preparation and the true hourly rate. The proposed uplifting features are not enough to compensate for this and will not apply in a great many serious cases because they are extremely restricted in their scope.
The Lord Chancellor's Department has contended that it is a question of swings and roundabouts—that a junior barrister may lose out on the more serious case but will gain when he or she undertakes a less serious or more simple one. I have never understood whether it is the swing or the roundabout that is to benefit. It is likely, in the case of senior junior barristers, to be a case of all swings and no roundabouts, or vice versa. The department's point fundamentally ignores the reality of senior junior barristers' work. They do not receive the benefit of undertaking the simple straightforward case, but have a succession of substantial and difficult ones.
The report of the Legal Aid Board for 1999–2000 established that 16.4 per cent of the total payments for family legal aid went to barristers, and that 83.6 per cent went to solicitors whose fees have been increased by between 10 per cent and 25 per cent, as announced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As I understand it, this scheme is based on a model. The model is based on data collected prior to 1996, and uplifted for inflation.
The Lord Chancellor's stated aim is to achieve a 5 per cent reduction on payments currently made to barristers. Very junior barristers will suffer no reduction and very possibly will achieve an increase for their work in simple cases. Solicitors are to have their rates increased. In those circumstances, it is only too obvious that senior junior barristers will suffer a reduction of more than 5 per cent in their income. Some senior junior barristers are likely to find that they suffer a reduction of between 25 per cent and 40 per cent in their gross income.
No one knows what the current level of payments is for a case because the model is out of date. Since then, the amount of preparatory documents required in family cases has undergone a wholesale change, and increase, in accordance with the President of the Family Division's practice direction. The savings which are to be made by implementation of this scheme relate only to 16.4 per cent of the total payments. Therefore, barristers are being asked to bear the whole reduction in the level of legal aid payments.
Under the scheme, payments are related to various functions. Function 1 relates to all work other than conferences which is carried out prior to the issue of proceedings, or which does not fall within the remaining Functions 2 to 5. Only one Function 1 payment can be claimed per case. This means that if a barrister is asked to prepare a pre-issue advice, and that barrister is later instructed on other aspects possibly to give further advice, he or she will be unable to claim payment for that further work. That work could have taken several hours and it is work for which the barrister could be sued in negligence.
Further, everything is included in the function price. This could include the drafting of statements, complicated advice and the preparation of documents required in accordance with the President's practice direction, such as a chronology, a statement of issues, schedules and a skeleton argument. As one global payment is to be made regardless of the amount of work undertaken, some work will effectively be unpaid.
Payment will be allowed for only one conference or one consultation, regardless of whether there are further developments in the case which require further conferences. If a second or further conference is required, the barrister will not receive any further payment. Conferences in family cases are of crucial importance. Particularly in ancillary relief cases, they are usually the barrister's only contact with the case. Advice given in conference will often lead to settlement of the case and a consequent saving of costs.

421
Conferences in family cases require a lot of detailed preparation. The rates proposed for conferences and consultations are totally inadequate having regard to the importance of that work. In ancillary relief cases there may well be a preliminary conference and then the need for a further conference when full discovery has been provided. Why should the second conference, or consultation, go unremunerated?
There is a further aspect of the scheme which is likely to produce unfairness. Where a barrister takes over a case where a previous barrister has had a conference, as only one conference will be remunerated, one or other of the barristers will not be paid. The scheme proposes that an arrangement is reached between the barristers as to a sharing of the fee. This is self-evidently unrealistic and at best will produce a payment which is wholly inadequate for the work undertaken.
By contrast, solicitors are to be paid for the work which they actually undertake in family cases. They will be paid an hourly rate for the same work undertaken by barristers. Frequently in family cases senior junior barristers will appear against solicitor advocates particularly in the County Court where much of the family work is undertaken. This is hardly an inducement to the solicitor advocate to settle the case. There is inherent unfairness about such an approach to remuneration.
The Lord Chancellor's Department stated that the assessment of legal aid fees cannot be relied upon in order to achieve the necessary savings. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor claims that it is a discredited scheme and that there is a need to produce certainty. It is indeed a remarkable feature of the Lord Chancellor's approach that he has left in place the system of assessment in order to deal with the payment of solicitors, which represents 83.6 per cent of the total fund, and abolished it in relation to 16.4 per cent of the fund—that part of the fund which is devoted to barristers.
In ancillary relief, it is frequently the case that the wife of a wealthy husband has no assets or income of her own. She may be publicly funded, whereas her husband will have access to lawyers on a private basis. The wife's senior junior barrister or possibly Queen's Counsel under the scheme will be paid a totally inadequate rate for careful and considered advice which could have far-reaching consequences for the settlement and conduct of the case. The fee will not reflect the degree of responsibility to be exercised by the barrister and the likely time devoted to the case.
If it is right to pay solicitors increased rates which presumably the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor considers reasonable, why is it fair to pay barristers such inadequate and in some cases derisory rates?
Why should senior junior barristers, who are individuals with normal personal and family commitments, be obliged to work long hours at uneconomic rates? To date the evidence is only anecdotal, but several senior practitioners have expressed an intention to give up undertaking any
422
publicly funded work. They propose to do this with considerable regret. They came to the Bar to make a living but also to undertake legal work for people particularly in care proceedings who are often among the most disadvantaged members of society. It is right that they should be paid at a rate which reflects the skill and experience and the time which they bring to a case. If barristers are to be paid the same rate regardless of the seriousness of the case and the time devoted to it, they cannot achieve a natural increase in earnings as they undertake increasingly serious work commensurate with their developed skill and experience. They will earn at no greater rate than the pupil or the very junior barrister. It is not surprising therefore that they will see no future for themselves in publicly funded family work.
This scheme is likely to lead to a haemorrhaging of talented, skilled and experienced practitioners from publicly funded family work. The loss of such practitioners can only work to the detriment of people whose sole contact with the administration of justice is in connection with family work and who need barristers of skill and experience to protect and guide them through a most stressful period in their lives. This can only undermine the efficient administration of justice.
The right to family life is enshrined in the Human Rights Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may care to reflect that these very rights are being put under threat if litigants are deprived of barristers of sufficient skill and experience to advise them and present their case. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 20th March, be annulled (S.I. 2001/1077).—(Lord Kingsland.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I give strong support to this Prayer. The work of the family Bar is of enormous importance in human terms. The Bar has to help courts to take decisions which will affect children for the whole of their lives, such as when a marriage or a relationship has broken up, which parent does the child live with? What access should the other parent be given? Indeed, in some cases should children be taken away from their natural parents altogether and taken into care? In any of those cases a wrong decision can have a devastating effect; and a wrong decision is more likely to be taken if counsel who appears for the child, or for a parent, is inexperienced, incompetent or overworked.
The order lays down strict rules about fees. The problem with the order, as the noble Lord pointed out, is that it is not sufficiently graduated. In particular, there is in effect a flat rate for all work done out of court irrespective of the time spent on it. There are, of course, some exceptions. There is a possibility of a special issue payment under regulation 9. But that regulation is drafted in terms which make it clear that it is intended that special issue payments should be very special indeed. There is a possibility of small extra

423
payments under regulation 11 for the reading of unusually long court bundles. But those, frankly, are likely to have, at best, a very limited effect.
There are, of course—and any honest member of the Bar must accept it—some counsel who, if paid by the hour, will drag out the work to enlarge the fee. There are justifiable criticisms of the way in which legal aid money is sometimes spent. We had a striking example of that only yesterday in Mr Justice Butterfield's criticism of over-representation of the defendants in the Afghan hijack case. But those criticisms do not apply to any significant extent, I believe, to most members of the family Bar. It is obvious, surely, that more complicated cases need more work done on them especially perhaps before the hearing.
The effect of the regulations will be that counsel handling the relatively simple cases will receive the same amount for their preparatory work as someone handling a more complex case. As the noble Lord pointed out, this will hit senior juniors. The more experienced juniors, the ones who handle the more difficult cases which need more time spent on the preparation, will suffer in particular.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, mentioned that estimates suggest that fees will be reduced by as much as between 25 and 40 per cent for barristers in that category. Those are gross fees before a contribution to rent and other chamber expenses; and since those costs will not be reduced, the net fees will be reduced by even more than those headline figures.
These people have mortgages. They have children to clothe and feed. There is a grave danger that those who can do so will change the nature of their practice or leave the Bar altogether. Those who have already gone into family law know that few, if any, of them would become fat cats by comparison with the barristers at the commercial Bar or the other specialist branches of the Bar. But this order will widen the gap much further and will surely deter young people from going into family law. Indeed, there will be a rush out of it.
I understand that there is to be a meeting of the Bar Council on Monday. At that meeting the Bar Council will consider changing the rules of professional conduct so that counsel will not be required to assume, as a matter of course, that the legal aid fee offered for family work is a proper fee. That will mean that the cab rank rule will not apply to publicly-funded family work. That would be a very grave step. The Bar's acceptance of the duty to take on legal aid work, even when it means that more lucrative offers of private work have to be turned down, has been essential to the success of legal aid. Only in the most extreme circumstances would the Bar depart from that principle, but that may happen next Monday.
I have one further point that is a little off the subject of the order, but is nevertheless relevant. The attack on the fees of the family Bar is not the only example of cost-cutting that threatens the effective work of family courts. The Lord Chancellor's Department has recently proposed the introduction of a banded and fixed fee system for guardians ad litem, who play an invaluable role in care proceedings.
424
I recently received a letter from an experienced guardian who has high qualifications. She said:
"It is difficult to follow the reasoning behind the Lord Chancellor's department to introduce banded and fixed fee payments at a rate which would result in Guardians' incomes being significantly reduced and an inevitable exodus of experienced, committed and talented practitioners from the service".
She went on to say:
"Under the new suggested pay scheme I would earn little more than a newly qualified social worker. I will leave unless this dispute is resolved. I believe many colleagues would do the same with the resulting loss to children and their families".
The order and the new proposals on fees paid to guardians ad litem create a real danger that the invaluable work of the family courts may be undermined. I find it unsympathetic to say the least that proposals to cut the fees of family barristers and guardians ad litem should come from a department whose head is entitled to a much higher rate of pay than are his colleagues. For the year to 1st April 2001, the salary of a Cabinet Minister in your Lordships' House was just under £86,000 a year. The salary of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was nearly double that, at £167,760. The Lord Chancellor's Department has argued in the past—and may possibly argue again today—that fees of barristers doing legal aid work should be compared with public service salaries rather than with the fees of barristers doing privately funded work. I accept that there is some force in that argument, but I shall treat it more seriously when the Lord Chancellor's salary is cut to a level equal to that of other Cabinet Ministers in your Lordships' House.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach): My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. We do not agree with the Cassandra-like prophecies that have come, unusually, from both noble Lords. I shall try to explain why in a moment. I was somewhat surprised by the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about guardians ad litem, who have nothing to do with the order, and, more particularly, about my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord knows better than anyone that the Lord Chancellor's salary is set with regard to his position as the head of the judiciary. That has been the position under governments of all parties.
I shall explain what the family graduated fee scheme actually is. It is a new scheme to pay barristers for their work on publicly funded family law cases. It provides for fees to be paid for different types of case. Those fees are graduated to take account of the complexity of the case. The more complex the case, the higher the fee.
The regulations provide that family work will be divided into four types of case: public law children; private law children; family injunctions, which are commonly cases of domestic violence; and ancillary relief and other types of family case. Each case is then broken down into five functions which reflect different aspects of the case. They are: advice; conferences; two

425
types of interim hearing; and the main hearing. Set fees, which vary between the four categories of case, are paid for each of those functions.
Additional payments can then be claimed to reflect special payments for different types of complexity that may occur in a case. Those include, for example, allegations of abuse against a child and complex foreign financial issues. They also include other factors which may make a case more time-consuming or difficult, including the scale of the paperwork to be submitted to the court, the presence of experts or the fact that one of the parties is unrepresented. Barristers will also claim separately for incidental items, such as listening to evidence tapes and travel expenses.
From that brief description, the House will appreciate that the scheme recognises that different cases will require different types of work from barristers and that it rewards them for that.
Discussions on the family graduated fee scheme started in 1996 under the previous government. By that stage, negotiations on the criminal graduated fee scheme were near completion. That scheme was introduced in 1997 and has proved a considerable success. It will be extended later this year to cover a wider range of criminal cases.
We decided to continue the negotiations on the graduated fee scheme for family work. We were, of course, encouraged by the fact that the criminal graduated fee scheme had shown conclusively that such a scheme can work for payments to counsel. It was also clear that the existing scheme for the family Bar was in desperate need of reform.
Under the present fees system, fixed rates, with standard and maximum payments, are paid to junior counsel. The rates cover only briefs which last a day or less. All other briefs for junior counsel and all payments to Queen's Counsel are subject to the discretion of the court. As your Lordships know, that means that the Government have no way of predicting or controlling the amount of taxpayers' money that is paid to barristers.
A graduated fee scheme means that, in common with every other type of professional, barristers know in advance of a case how much they are likely to be paid. Under the graduated fee scheme, barristers will also be paid far more quickly—usually within three or four weeks of submitting their claim. We did not hear much about that tonight. At present, of course, they can wait months, or even years, to receive payment.
The scheme that we are implementing is not the same as the one that was under discussion in 1997. It has been subject to an extensive period of consultation with the Bar and other interested parties, including the Law Society, members of the judiciary and others. That process was launched in July last year and closed on 12th October. Since then, numerous meetings with the professional bodies have taken place, at both ministerial and official level.
A significant number of changes have been made to reflect the concerns expressed, particularly by the Bar. For example, a number of changes have been made to reward senior junior counsel, who are likely to take on
426
the more complex cases. Those include uplifting by one-third the fees paid for cases which take place in the High Court. They will normally be cases conducted by senior juniors. They also include introducing new payments to reflect the size of the court bundle. We have also made changes to reflect new ancillary relief procedures introduced last year.
So far as concerns preparation, we are of course aware of the president's practice direction. The scheme has been amended to take account of that practice direction and, in particular, a court bundle payment was introduced to reward counsel for the extra preparation required in more complex cases which will be reflected in the size of the court bundle. That, again, will assist more senior juniors.
The fee for each hearing unit includes an element for preparation, including conferences. It was agreed with the Bar Council that a separate single payment would also be made for conferences. Barristers can claim the maximum uplift relevant to the case for the conference. Following consultation, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor increased conference fees by over 25 per cent. We should contrast that with the position involving conferences in the criminal graduated fee scheme—conferences are rarely paid for.
The rates set within the scheme were of course the subject of intense consultation. My noble and learned friend initially proposed rates that would have resulted in an estimated reduction in the amounts paid to the Bar for family work of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. Following consultation, the reduction is now 5 per cent. The additional funds that have been placed within the scheme reflect the great importance that my noble and learned friend places on family work. I take this opportunity to express to the House the high opinion that the Government have of the work that solicitors and barristers do in this vital field.
In proposing those rates, the Lord Chancellor had full regard to the responses to the consultation process. I say in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that he carefully considered the factors that are set out in Section 25 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. That Act provides that, in setting rates, the Lord Chancellor must consider: first, the supply of competent legal practitioners who are willing to do the work; secondly, the cost to public funds; and, thirdly, the need to secure value for money. I shall briefly set out the thinking behind our decision as it relates to each of those three factors.
First, I turn to the supply of competent legal practitioners. The number of barristers increases year on year and, as noble Lords well know, there is intense competition to enter the profession. Advocacy in between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of family cases is provided by solicitors, so the number of cases in which counsel is used is already a minority. The number of publicly funded family cases as a whole is also decreasing. That reduction is nothing to do with legal aid; it is the result of wider changes in society. Taking those factors into account, we have no reason to believe that there will not be sufficient competent legal practitioners available to do publicly funded work.

427
The second factor involves the cost to public funds. About £62 million was paid to barristers in 1999–2000 for family work. The average payment made to barristers has continued to rise year on year. It has risen by 12 per cent in the past three years alone. We have become increasingly concerned about the very high payments that have been made to some barristers in some family cases. I shall give two examples. In a recent care case in the High Court, which lasted for nine days, a Queen's Counsel was paid £14,500 for the hearing alone. Total payments to him or her—I know not which—for the case were £41,000. In a similar case that lasted for 10 days, a junior barrister was paid more than £10,000 for the hearing and £13,000 in total.
In the context of a controlled budget for the Community Legal Service, rising payments to the Bar mean that fewer people can potentially be helped. We believe that a graduated scheme for family work is essential to control expenditure. I hope that we have the support of the other parties in our belief in a graduated scheme. We also believe that the level of fees that is set out in the regulations is fully justified.
Finally, I turn to value for money. Much of what I said about the cost to public funds also applies in this regard. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the fees that barristers will be paid are still significant in comparison with the rates that are paid to many other professionals. We estimate that a barrister will still be paid more than £2,000 for a public law children case involving three days in court. Even allowing for considerable professional expenses, that is still a generous remuneration.
We have heard much this evening about the true reduction in rates that the scheme will produce. It is true that it is difficult to predict the exact reduction. There are two reasons for that. First, we are comparing two very different payment systems. Secondly, much will depend on the way in which barristers and judges operate the scheme in practice. However, the 5 per cent reduction in overall income represents the best estimate of analysts from both the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Bar Council. It is likely that, in practice, the reduction will be far less or eliminated entirely. I think it right that we should be prudent where public money is concerned. I have already mentioned the changes we have made to reward more complex cases.
I should tell the House that it had been agreed between the department and the Bar that a 10 per cent buffer should be introduced to the rates to take account of any leakage. In fact, there is no buffer that has been accounted for in the fee level and so we think it quite likely that the majority of the 5 per cent cuts in rates will be swallowed back into the scheme.
Nonetheless, because of the uncertainty in the new scheme, the Lord Chancellor has agreed to a review after 12 to 18 months. That will look at level of rates paid within the scheme on a cost per case basis to determine the actual results of the scheme on income to the Bar. Following the review, the Lord Chancellor will consider whether more money should be put into
428
the scheme or if fees should be further reduced in the light of the actual impact and the supply of barristers undertaking publicly funded family work. Officials have already invited members of the Bar to meet to discuss the terms of reference for the review.
I shall say something about the comparison between the fees paid to solicitor advocates and the fees paid to barristers for family work. Solicitors recently benefited from an average increase of about 10 per cent in their rates. I make three points about that. First, solicitors have always been paid on an entirely different basis to barristers. Solicitors have been subject to an hourly rate regime for many years. Those hourly rates have not been significantly increased for the past eight years. Since January 2000, solicitors have also been subject to the additional controls imposed by contracting. It is notable that the average payment to solicitors for family work fell in 1999–2000, whereas the average payment to counsel increased.
Secondly, it is difficult to compare the fees that will be paid to solicitors with those that will be paid to barristers because the schemes are entirely different. One should take account of the fact that many family cases run shorter than expected. Within the graduated fee scheme, a barrister involved in a main hearing will be paid for a full day in court, even if the case settles after an hour. In addition, he may be paid a settlement supplement, which could double his hearing fee. In contrast—and this is an important point—a solicitor advocate will be paid only for the hour's work.
Thirdly, we shall be collecting data about the rates paid to solicitor advocates for family work so that proper comparisons can he made.
Before I finish, I cannot resist the temptation to comment on the fact that the attack on the Government's graduated scheme for family barristers comes from the Conservative Party in this instance. It seems to me that that is a remarkable place for it to come from at this particular time. I am disappointed that the Conservatives are attacking the controls that we are introducing. It was the previous government who started the introduction of graduated fees. They did well with them and we are continuing the policy because it is the right one.
But it goes further than that. I refer to what was said by the honourable Member for Harborough, Mr Edward Garnier, who speaks on legal affairs from the Front Bench in another place. He said that the Conservatives are to do away with the Community Legal Service, replacing it with a contingency legal aid fund, a CLAF. But everyone knows that family cases cannot work within a CLAF as very often no orders for costs are made and both sides can properly receive public funding. Those are part of the Tory cuts—£525 million to go back to the Treasury. That is money which is presently used to purchase and pay for important services, including fees for barristers doing family law cases. The money cannot be spent both on family Bar fees and returned to the Treasury as a public expenditure cut. Under those proposals, there would be virtually no money available to pay graduated fees to barristers undertaking family law

429
work within the Community Legal Service. That is a consequence of the abolition of the CLS and the return of the money to the Treasury.
I trust that the House will accept that it would be difficult for any noble Lord promoting that policy legitimately and with conviction to raise concerns about the level of fees payable under this order. It would be a classic case of attempting to ride two horses at the same time, potentially disastrous and certainly extremely embarrassing.
I do not suppose that I have persuaded those who have spoken in the debate of the merits of our graduated fee scheme. I have taken some time and done my best to explain what our scheme is about. We are much more optimistic that the scheme will work. If it does not, the review which will take place within a comparatively short time will tell us that. That is why we have said that there will be a review within 12 to 18 months. However, the Government are optimistic that the graduated fee scheme will be to the benefit of everyone: the barristers involved, the clients and, above all, the taxpayer.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his response to my Prayer. I shall resist the temptation to respond to the final stages of his speech about Conservative Party policy. Those matters and that style of robust repartee can wait a few weeks until the election campaign begins. In any case, the issues which are connected with the subject of my Prayer tonight are too important for the kind of political exchanges into which the noble Lord sought to tempt me.
The Conservative Party has no difficulty with the principle of graduated fees; indeed, we welcome it. Our concern with the graduated fees which are contained in the Government's order is not with the principle but with the levels and the circumstances in which uplift applies. I was heartened by one part of the noble Lord's speech; that is, his undertaking to keep the system under review, and before establishing the nature of that review to engage in discussions with representatives of the Bar Council.
I wonder whether I can ask the Minister to be more specific as to how he sees the review operating. Will he be setting up a special team in the Lord Chancellor's Department to keep under constant review the system of graduated fees for family practitioners? Will representatives of the Bar Council be engaged in such a review? Will the results of such monitoring be made public? Finally, will be commit himself to a specific period, either 12 or 18 months, by which time the Government will have reached clear conclusions about
430
the effects of the new scheme on remuneration, which they will make public and act upon if the scheme appears, as I suggest it might, to be in breach of Section 25 of the Access to Justice Act?
Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps I may seek to answer the very fair questions raised by the noble Lord. It is right to say that the new scheme will not come into play for anything other than new cases for which certificates are granted after 1st May. The first few cases that are finished will be the shorter cases rather than the longer ones. I do not think that the noble Lord will be surprised by the fact that we are caking a little time before the review begins, otherwise it probably would not be a fair review in any event.
We still have to meet with the Bar at official level to discuss exactly what form the review will take and the requirements for data collection for management information on the scheme. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that data will be collected by the Legal Services Commission each month. However, it will take us some time to get sufficient data to arrive at sensible conclusions. The results will be shared with the Bar.
At present I cannot go further than that, but perhaps I may make a general point. Of course, there are disagreements between the Bar and the Government on this issue.
I should like to pay compliment to the Bar Council and its leaders on the way in which they have dealt with this matter and with the difficult and sensitive negotiations that take place with government. It has looked after the interests of the Bar as it has seen them and has debated in a fair and proper way both the scheme that we are introducing and what happens afterwards. I should like to thank the Bar Council for that.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I take some encouragement from what the noble Lord said. However, he will be aware that for the next few months both the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and myself will be watching his department closely in order to see how the developments he has drawn to our attention are put in place and what results from them.
In normal circumstances, I should have wished to divide the House on this matter. However, in view of the time and wider considerations of a political nature which I have been compelled to take into account, I shall not do so. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.

  Animal Rights Extremism: Ministerial Committee
  Animal Rights Extremism: Ministerial Committee
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc
  South Africa: Health Care Funding
  South Africa: Health Care Funding
  South Africa: Cheap HIV/AIDS Drugs
  South Africa: Cheap HIV/AIDS Drugs
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Cluster Munitions
  Cluster Munitions
  Northern Ireland: Air Sea Rescue Costs
  Northern Ireland: Air Sea Rescue Costs
  Army Summary Jurisdiction Appeals
  Army Summary Jurisdiction Appeals
  Centre for Defence Medicine
  Centre for Defence Medicine
  Combat Effectiveness and Gender: Study
  Combat Effectiveness and Gender: Study
  Ministry of Defence Police Quinquennial Review
  Ministry of Defence Police Quinquennial Review
  Woodland Management: Forestry Commission Support
  Woodland Management: Forestry Commission Support
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Withdrawal of Restrictions
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Withdrawal of Restrictions
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Blundeston Prison and Hollesley Bay YOI: Possible Evacuation
  Blundeston Prison and Hollesley Bay YOI: Possible Evacuation
  Criminal Records Bureau: Registered Persons' Code of Practice
  Criminal Records Bureau: Registered Persons' Code of Practice