Sitting of 16 January 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Community Bus Trusts
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: If he will make it his policy to encourage the establishment of community bus trusts to provide not-for-profit bus routes in urban areas. [143964]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government's policies recognise the value of community and voluntary transport, and the introduction of the urban bus challenge will further encourage that. Community transport already benefits from our rural transport funding and my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that many local communities will benefit from the 45 per cent. increase in support for rural bus services that was announced in the rural White Paper.
    I am also pleased to say that we are announcing today the intention to give local authorities more flexibility to use this funding to safeguard existing bus services, as well as to provide entirely new services. In addition, we will consult shortly on extending the bus fuel duty rebate and other measures to encourage the expansion of the community transport sector.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Is he aware that some urban bus companies in medium-sized towns and cities try to streamline their services by cutting out neighbourhood bus routes, which are a particular benefit to the elderly, people who attend hospital and those with restricted mobility? Does he think that an effective community bus trust would resolve many of those issues, if implemented well locally? Is he prepared to venture that his Department would look favourably on the formation of trusts that might fall foul of remnants of the Transport Act 1985?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I am aware that the possible loss of neighbourhood feeder services is an issue in Southampton, and he is right to raise it. We are keen to see the development of community provision, and there are likely to be opportunities for that in the urban bus challenge, as announced in our 10-year plan.
    182
    The aim is to contribute towards improving transport provision for deprived urban areas, not only in inner cities but in outlying urban estates. Some £40 million will be available over the next three years, and we would certainly expect community transport schemes, with various structures, to be a prominent part of the project.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister consider the bus routes that are operated by First York, and in particular the increasing unreliability of its bus schedules, from which a number of services have been cancelled? The community element of the service is that it gives people who live in Haxby and Wigginton access to York hospital. Without that bus route, they will simply not arrive to visit patients.
    Mr. Hill: The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of bus services in her constituency, and we share her concerns. We recognise that bus services, and in particular local authority budgets for bus subsidies, are under pressure in some areas, and that tender prices for subsidised services have been increasing. She will be pleased to learn that the recent revenue support grant settlement took those pressures into account.
    Ms Joan Walley: May I stress to my hon. Friend how important it is that we deal with the legacy of deregulation in our urban areas? Last week, PMT, the local bus company in Stoke-on-Trent, announced the withdrawal of bus services 86, 92, 94 and 96. There will be quality partnerships across the city, but people who live on its fringes and cannot access the fast bus routes will not be able to make use of public transport. Will he look closely at how he can assist us to get back those crucial neighbourhood bus services?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right. It is disturbing to hear of the loss of services in Stoke-on-Trent because PMT has withdrawn some routes. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the disastrous loss of bus services as a result of deregulation and privatisation, which reduced bus passenger journeys by 13 million a day. However, I am delighted that there are signs that the Government are turning around the long-term decline in bus use, and we are determined to achieve further growth.
    I believe that the urban bus challenge will offer opportunities for Stoke-on-Trent. We will certainly support the best projects for which bids are submitted and will issue guidance and invitations to bid, with the aim of starting the first round of projects later this year.

    Housing Management
    Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement on tenant participation in housing management. [143965]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We will continue to promote increased opportunities for tenants to influence and have more control over the management of their homes through tenant participation compacts linked to best value. The majority of councils appear to be making good

    183
    progress with introducing compacts and some registered social landlords are also developing compacts with their tenants.
    Mr. Plaskitt: In my constituency, tenants in Warwick are looking forward to the local tenant participation compact, but it will involve them in handling some very complex issues. What support will my hon. Friend's Department offer for the training that will be required?
    Mr. Raynsford: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, because I know that there has been considerable progress in Warwick. The tenant participation compact, which has now been agreed by all parties, is due to be launched this spring. On the second part of his question, which was about funding, we have set aside £6 million in 2001–02 to help councils and tenants to develop compacts.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the Minister on his forthcoming elevation to the Privy Council. Does he recall that, shortly after the general election, the Deputy Prime Minister promised that there would be a return of council housing to other landlords? How does he square that distinct commitment with the housing Green Paper, which promises to stop the transfer of at least 200,000 council houses every year?
    Mr. Raynsford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He will know from our housing Green Paper that we have an extremely ambitious programme to achieve a step change in the condition of all council housing in this country and have set the ambitious target of ensuring that all substandard properties are modernised within a 10-year timetable. That will involve substantial increased investment in council housing and the continued transfer of some properties to other bodies, such as registered social landlords, to secure additional investment. That is part of a comprehensive programme in which the tenants ultimately decide the best future for their homes. That is absolutely in line with the principle of tenant participation, which was the subject of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt).
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Under this Government, council tenants at least have choices, are consulted and will have votes. Should they not be warned that, under the Tories, they would have none of that and all their council housing would be transferred at a stroke in an accelerated manner and without votes, choices or anything else?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This Government not only provided extra investment but made it clear that the choice about the future of their homes is one that tenants will make. It is right that they should decide. In somewhat ill-chosen remarks about housing, the Conservative party has implied that it intends forcibly to transfer all council housing to other landlords. I do not think that that is likely to command much respect among tenants.

    Local Government
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on the future of two-tier local government and the Government's plans for regional government in England. [143966]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We remain committed to moving to directly elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. In the meantime, there are no plans at present to reform the structure of local government in England. Unlike the previous Government, we believe in the decentralisation of power at local, regional and national levels.
    Mr. Swayne: Has the Secretary of State seen the Library research into the political affiliations of the members of regional development agency boards? It transpires that nearly three quarters of them are Labour cronies, so does he understand the preference of many of our constituents for sticking with their county councils and doing away with the regional development agencies altogether?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman must be including an awful lot of business people in his Labour cronies. That makes a remarkable change in the political situation in the regions.
    The Tory party is committed to abolishing the regional chambers, the assemblies and the development agencies, so I shall deal with the direct political representation that it has. More than 105 Tory councillors are on regional chambers and 33 are on the south-east regional assembly, including Councillor Simon Hayes of the New Forest district council in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer to the opening question, which made it clear that the movement towards regional government in those regions that make a case for it and can convince the people that it is right will not be blocked or delayed by the irrelevance of dealing with unnecessary local government reform?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, that is the point that we have made. In the referendum on the London strategic authority, 75 per cent. voted yes. On that occasion, the Tories asked people to vote no, but I presume that they have now accepted the result. They always oppose the establishment of development agencies and constitutional change, but they eventually come round to accepting them.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that regional government costs the taxpayer a fortune without our being able to see any great advantage from it? Does he realise how angry that makes people in Rochford, where the grant this year is £400,000 less than it was six years ago? The people there think that the money would be far better spent on giving help to existing councils.
    Mr. Prescott: Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no form of regional government at the moment, but there are regional organisations. The first regional

    185
    body set up by the previous Administration was that of the regional government offices, which presumably cost a few bob to run as well. There is not a great deal of money being spent on reorganisation.
    We believe that it is relevant to have a strategy for the regions, which is why we encouraged the development agencies, which were also supported by the previous Administration. The hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament in 1979 when his party fought on an election manifesto pledge to get rid of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. However, as soon as they returned to power, they eagerly engaged in using them.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many fine cities in England would be perfectly capable of running their own affairs, although at the moment they have to suffer being lumped in with county councils, in which rural interests dominate? Does it not make sense for matters that are best dealt with on a regional level to be dealt with in that way, for those best dealt with locally to be dealt with at district or city level, and to deliver, at long last, the unitary status that cities such as Exeter deserve?
    Mr. Prescott: It is true that many of the unitary authorities that were established under the previous Administration do a good job, and we see local government being built on that unitary system. It is also true that strategic decisions that need to be made in the English regions are perhaps not being made as well as they are in the London area, where strategic decisions are made by a strategic body. We have said that, ultimately, the people will decide, in a referendum. The people will be given the choice, and if they want the provision we shall observe their wishes.
    Mr. Archie Norman: After three and a half years in government, has the Deputy Prime Minister forgotten completely that it was a solemn Labour manifesto pledge to introduce directly elected regional government? Is not the truth that, although he is still enthusiastic, he has not succeeded in convincing any of his colleagues? The Prime Minister has cold feet and the local government Minister has said that the issue is all a great diversion.
    Four or five weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House that he was still consulting on the matter. Is he consulting anyone but himself? If he is not going to reaffirm the commitment to introduce regional government—or provide a time scale for its introduction—why should we believe anything that he has to say about local government democracy?
    Mr. Prescott: We made it clear in our manifesto that we believed in decentralisation, after 18 years of centralisation and the break-up of local government under the previous Administration. In our three years, we have introduced radical change, in the form of devolution in Scotland and Wales; introduced the necessary legislation to conduct the referendum in London, and established regional bodies such as the RDAs; and reformed the civil service structure to enable us to make joined-up government decisions in the regions. Those are good steps towards our commitment to decentralisation.
    186
    In the manifesto, we said that we would give the choice to people in the regions, and that where there was a demand, we would hold a referendum. [Interruption.] We have not yet received that demand. Consultation is going on in all the regions. Opposition Members can ask their local Tory councillors who are involved in them. They will find that many of those councillors are joining us in the demand for regional government.
    Mr. Norman: The truth is that we have no directly elected regional government. All that we have are extremely expensive regional bureaucracies delivering nothing to anybody. After three and a half years, the Government cannot make up their own mind on what was a manifesto pledge. Is not the truth that the Conservative party is now the party of local government, and that Labour is presiding over what the head of the Local Government Association—who is a Labour supporter—described as the strange death of local democracy?
    Will the Deputy Prime Minister now affirm the Government's commitment to the future of county councils? If not, does that mean that, if Labour were to be re-elected, county councils that date back to the Domesday Book would cease to exist, and that 3 May could be the date of the last county council elections in the history of England?
    Mr. Prescott: The obvious assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Conservatives will lose the general election. I agree with him on that. He mentioned regional bureaucracies. The previous Administration set up regional government offices that were accountable to no one but central Government. They were not accountable to people in the regions.
    Mr. Norman: What about the RDAs?
    Mr. Prescott: It is true that the RDAs are appointed centrally, but they contain locally elected representatives, such as the 105 Tory councillors who sit on the bodies to which they make their reports. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Conservative party is the friend of local authorities, but in that context I shall mention only the Banham review—a report into the organisation of local authorities that was a total mess and had to be withdrawn—and the poll tax, which cost the country £14 billion. By any fair test, to suggest that the previous Administration were the friend of local authorities is not acceptable.

    Council Tax
    Mr. David Borrow: What representations he has received on the council tax banding of park homes. [143967]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Last year, we received one representation from the British Holiday and Home Park Association in response to our local government finance Green Paper, and a further 15 representations and one petition to the Queen from residents of mobile and park homes about council tax.

    187
    About a third of the 1,110 responses to last year's consultation on the recommendations of the working party on park homes commented on the council tax.
    Mr. Borrow: Most of my constituents who live in mobile homes in the Tarleton, Penwortham and Banks areas occupy properties worth less than £20,000. They always tell me that they consider it unfair that they should pay the same council tax as occupiers of properties worth twice as much. Will my hon. Friend give serious consideration in the current review of local government finance to the introduction of an additional council tax band below band A to deal with that blatant unfairness towards owners of park homes?
    Ms Hughes: My hon. Friend is very experienced in matters of valuation generally, so I respond to him with some trepidation, especially as I cannot accede fully to his request. He will know that restructuring the bands, including splitting a band, would require primary legislation. We have no plans to introduce such legislation in the foreseeable future. However, I am aware of the views that he has expressed and we are keeping the matter under review, as I have made clear.
    Furthermore, although the local government finance Green Paper did not address the issue specifically, a number of respondents have raised the matter with the Government. We shall certainly consider those responses as we move towards preparing a White Paper on local government finance.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It is not the Minister's fault, but there is complete disarray when it comes to the council tax bands applicable to park home estates. Whether a park home is placed in council tax band A depends entirely on the whim of the district valuer. A great many people, both in the House and outside, assumed at the outset that park homes would be in band A. Is not there an excellent case for putting them in band A and dealing with them in that manner?
    Ms Hughes: That is another example of the new party of local government demonstrating its very short memory, as the banding structure for council tax was introduced by the Conservative party. By definition, any banding system will mean that bands have lower and upper limits, and that there is a range in each band. The Government are aware of the view that the bands should be restructured. We are keeping the matter under review. The relevant legislation will not be changed in the foreseeable future, but we will consider the matter in the context of the White Paper on local government finance.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: I support everything that my hon. Friend the Minister has said about council tax banding. One indicator of the health of the park home sector is that people are prepared to invest sometimes six-figure sums in such homes. Does not that show that the Government are right to pursue reform of the sector, and that the previous Government's Mobile Homes Act 1983 was completely useless and transparently hopeless when it came to preserving the
    188
    rights of park home owners? Is not it now time to introduce new housing legislation to protect the rights of those residents?
    Ms Hughes: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the investment that many owners of park homes put into their properties is very creditable. He will know that it was this Government who established the working party to take up some of the issues that the previous Government had long neglected in relation to park home owners. That working party's report was published in July 2000. We are consulting on it and considering the recommendations.

    Travellers
    Mr. John Randall: What measures his Department is taking to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour by travellers; and if he will make a statement. [143968]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My Department has issued revised circular guidance to local authorities on unauthorised camping, making it clear that criminal or antisocial behaviour should not be tolerated in any circumstances. Such behaviour is as unacceptable in the gypsy and traveller communities as it is in the settled community and it should be dealt with using the powers already available to local authorities and the police. A copy of the circular, issued on 26 July 2000, is in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Randall: The Minister must be aware that one problem that is often encountered is that when an illegal encampment is evicted, the occupants simply go a short distance away and create another nuisance. Is his Department thinking of any measures that could be taken that would prevent such behaviour, which is creating much expense for local authorities, individuals and businesses?
    Mr. Mullin: The difficulty is that merely moving people on does not solve the problem, because it simply transfers it over the border into the area of a neighbouring local authority. The key to dealing—[Interruption.] It is a serious issue. The key to dealing with problems with travellers is co-operation between local authorities and the police. When the police and local authorities work closely together—there are some examples of good practice that others would do well to emulate, such as in Essex, Northamptonshire and Oxford—the problem caused by antisocial travellers can be easily contained.
    I am not sure that there is a very great problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We looked up the returns that his local authority, Hillingdon, had made for the number of illegally parked caravans. It did not make a return to the most recent census, in July 2000, and the highest number in recent years was seven, in January 1999.
    Mr. Mark Todd: Is not one problem that the traditional activity of many illegal travellers and campers is waste collection and disposal, which they carry out in defiance of environmental protection law, which covers the licensing of vehicles and

    189
    the safe and appropriate disposal of what they collect? Would it not be useful to ensure that the regulatory authorities understand that law, and apply it properly to those who carry out those activities?
    Mr. Mullin: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. A large part of the problem is not a lack of powers but a lack of proper enforcement. The powers exist and there are some fairly stiff penalties, but co-operation between local authorities and police, and sometimes other agencies, is needed to ensure that they are properly enforced.
    Mr. Damian Green: I wonder whether the Minister recognises how complacent he sounds on this issue. The Government have simply failed to act effectively. If he does not want to accept that from me, perhaps he will listen to the words of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who said in July 2000:
    Travellers are setting up on illegal sites in Derbyshire because the police are seen as a soft touch.
    Will the Minister acknowledge that the guidelines on travellers who trespass, issued by chief police officers, say:
    Sometimes the reason for non-exercise of
    police powers
    will he a lack of police resources?
    His colleagues admit it; the police admit it. When will he admit that the Government have failed decent, law-abiding people on this issue?
    Mr. Mullin: As I said, this is a serious issue. We are not in the least complacent. First, we have already toughened the guidelines. Secondly, we made available £17 million over the past three years to upgrade legal camping sites, and not a lot happened. In many cases, those sites deteriorated beyond recognition under the previous Administration, and it is a serious problem. We cannot hope to evict illegal travellers unless they have somewhere reasonable to go, so we are making available £17 million to upgrade the 300 or so existing sites. We consider that to be an important precondition for addressing the problem.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I do not accept the tenor of the question, because there are some decent travellers, but I want to raise a specific problem that has arisen in my constituency and elsewhere. Itinerant horses have strayed on to the A13, for example. The local authorities and the police do not have the power to require that the cost of impounding the horses be met by those reclaiming them. Will my hot. Friend consider introducing legislation to ensure that the costs of recovery and custody of the horses are recoverable, or the horses are not returned?
    Mr. Mullin: We recognise that there are still many problems, such as the one that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We are in the market for constructive suggestions. We will consider any serious suggestion for improving the enforcement of existing regulations. In most instances, the necessary powers exist. It is a matter of proper enforcement, and there are councils where that has happened.

    Rail Recovery Action Group
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the progress made by the rail recovery action group. [143969]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Following the derailment of a train at Hatfield on 17 October, Railtrack instituted an immediate examination of the entire network, leading to nearly 1,000 20 mph speed restrictions being imposed, and requiring 450 miles of rerailing and the replacement of 650 points.
    The rail recovery action group brings together the key players in the rail industry to help to get services back to normal. Railtrack has now rerailed 273 miles and replaced 234 points. Of the remaining 421 speed restrictions, only 110 are still at 20 mph.
    Passengers have suffered considerable inconvenience, which we all regret. Services are continuing to improve. Twenty-three of the 28 train operating companies are working at or close to normal timetables. Railtrack has given assurances that by the end of the month the network will enable about 85 per cent. of all services to operate normally, and that by Easter the network will be back to normal.
    This unprecedented programme has required extraordinary efforts by thousands of railway workers, through the most difficult conditions of floods, snow and sub-zero temperatures. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in thanking them for all their efforts on the public's behalf.
    Mr. Fabricant: The House will join the Deputy Prime Minister in congratulating all the engineers and technicians, who have done good work so far. However, he will recall that on 9 November the Government held a summit—he was present, as was the Prime Minister—with Railtrack. He said that there would be a reliable timetable by Christmas. Sadly, that did not happen. We also heard of high hopes for a reliable timetable to begin yesterday. However, less than 50 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] The House does not like to hear what I have to say, but it is the truth.
    It was hoped that yesterday 85 per cent. of services would be working again. Sadly, less than 50 per cent. of them were. Do the Government now set their heart behind Railtrack's commitment that services will be back to normal by Easter, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said? By normal, does he mean that there will be the same, if not better, standards of reliability and punctuality as before Hatfield?
    Mr. Prescott: It is true that I told the House and said in public that I supported the evidence given to me and the statements made by Railtrack, to the effect that it would need only three weeks to produce a railway recovery programme. Any Minister in my position is bound to accept that professional advice. We know now that the promise and the recovery programme, followed by a sustainable timetable, can be achieved in normal circumstances only by Easter. I remind the House that normal is defined as 90 per cent. punctuality and reliability. That was called the normal service, which the previous Administration left us. We were working to

    191
    improve that, and there were some signs of improvement. That was the definition of normal that was given to me by Railtrack, and it is a matter of record.

    It is clear that about 23 of the 28 train companies are operating normal or near normal services by now, and certainly will be by the end of the month. Inter-city trains have longer delays for a number of reasons, as I discovered on Sunday night, as those who read the Daily Mail will appreciate. GNER, Virgin West Coast, First Great Western and Silverlink constitute some 1,000 services a day.
    There are usually more than 18,000 services a day, and the majority are working to normal standards. The House wants a normal service to be achieved as soon as possible and for services to operate safely. I have accepted the recovery programme given to me by Railtrack and I expect it to deliver on that. If it does not do so, that will be another reflection on its competence. At the moment, however, I give it my full support in getting back to a normal service.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will have seen the statement made by Railtrack yesterday, in which it set out the difficulties that it foresees in meeting its maintenance programme. Will he ask the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail recovery action group to provide practical ideas about whether Railtrack is capable of being the core service for the railway system, as well as about whether we need to find another strategy if the company is not fit for that purpose?
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point and describes very much what I have been doing. I have been asking the Strategic Rail Authority questions, as it is the body that should advise us on these matters. She will know that the Strategic Rail Authority invited all the operators to submit evidence and it established working groups. It did so on the basis of the statement made by the then chief executive that there was some conflict between the organisation of the railway under privatisation and the running of a safe operating railway. I rejected that assertion and I notice that Railtrack now also rejects it, as do most of the rail companies. The working groups were established to examine the difficulties, provide alternatives and consider how we might present proposals for discussion in the industry.
    I shall report back, as will the Strategic Rail Authority, which will provide its strategic agenda and report for the House to consider. Indeed, the Transport Sub-Committee will also be able to take that information fully into account. Many questions must be asked and many difficulties still face us, but we are trying at this stage to achieve a normal working railway. That is what the country wants and it is what we intend to achieve. I hope that the changes that will be introduced by the Transport Act 2000 will ensure that we get a good, modern railway system—something that this country has not had for decades.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I preface my question by saying that it does not imply any personal criticism of the right hon. Gentleman? Can he explain why two broken rails at Hatfield—they were on the line to my constituency—have wrecked the entire railway system? Has that happened because Railtrack and the train operating companies did not know
    192
    that hundreds of rails throughout the country were dangerous—or because they did know that but continued, month after month, to put at risk the lives of thousands of passengers every day?
    Mr. Prescott: The House will understand that that is a matter for the HSE, which is currently investigating it. It is clear from the work that is being done that the track might not have been in a proper state of repair, but that will have a lot to do with the record of investment under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in negotiations with Railtrack, the Government should be negotiating from a position not only of strength and conciliation, but of fear? Does he accept that Railtrack will not improve its performance unless it knows that there is a distinct possibility that the Government are prepared to take the track back into public ownership?
    Mr. Prescott: The framework in which we operate is to ensure that the economic regulation of the railways is done by the Rail Regulator. I appointed a new Rail Regulator, whom I believe to be doing an excellent job. Strategic decisions about preparing not only for the maintenance of a good railway system, but for its enhancement, are given to the Strategic Rail Authority, which has been established in legislation and takes effect on 1 February. The regulator and the authority have an active interest, as do the Government as we provide resources to Railtrack.
    We are entitled to ensure that a safe railway is being maintained, in line with the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. We are entitled also to ensure that the railway is working and meeting our 10-year plan, which is a matter for the economic regulator. The plan was established by the Government in discussion with the Strategic Rail Authority and we must ensure that it is implemented. That is the best way forward. As to whether Railtrack is fearful of me, I think that it should concentrate on getting things right.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The Secretary of State is very ready to tell everyone else what their responsibilities are while rarely taking on his responsibilities. We will hold him to his commitments. However, let me remind him that, two years ago, he told John Humphrys on the "Today" programme:
    Quality, quality, quality … You will be able to tell in 12 months, John.
    Yet the Deputy Prime Minister has been responsible for transport for the past four years, and thus for setting up the SRA, appointing new regulators, setting tough targets and hosting all the train summits. However, he is ever ready to blame the industry as soon as things go wrong.
    As the railway slides into deeper financial crisis, and the right hon. Gentleman's 10-year transport plan is in tatters, does he deny that he has been in control of rail policy for the past four years? Instead of improving matters, does he realise that he has made the railway a whole lot worse?
    Mr. Prescott: More people are travelling by rail than ever before. That was our intention—[Interruption.] Let

    193
    us wait and see. I thought that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was talking about the last four years. In those years, more people have travelled by rail, more goods have been carried as freight and the railway system has been safer. That is absolutely clear to anyone who looks at the record. The investment that was announced in our 10-year plan was on a scale that had not been witnessed in the House for decades [Interruption.] I can tell the House what went wrong. I shall quote the hon. Gentleman, who said:
    Certainly what we're happy to concede is that with the benefit of hindsight some of the privatisation decisions could have been improved.
    What went wrong was the Conservative Government's organisation of a railway system. They are responsible for that. We are introducing and providing the resources, the regulatory framework and a strategic vision. We shall provide a railway that is worthy of this country, rather than the one that the previous Administration constantly cut. We have had to tackle the problems that that caused.

    Housing Repairs
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: If he will make a statement on resources for local authorities to improve their housing stock. [143970]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government inherited a £19 billion backlog of renovation and improvement work that was needed on council housing stock. We have made a commitment to tackle that and to bring all social housing in England up to a decent standard by 2010. Allocations for housing capital expenditure by local authorities have been increased from £750 million in 1997–98 to £1.9 billion in the current year. Next year, there will be a further large increase to £2.4 billion, more than double the annual average that the previous Government made available over their last five years.
    Mrs. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful comments. Does he believe that they will help my young constituents in Ilkley, where there is a total lack of affordable housing to buy or to rent, mainly due to the previous Government's right-to-buy legislation? When many of my young constituents in Ilkley want to set up home, they have to move away from the areas in which they were brought up, and away from family and friends.
    Mr. Raynsford: We fully understand the problems that people experience because of the shortage of affordable housing and the poor condition of the housing stock, to which I referred earlier. That is why we have increased capital allocations. I am pleased to say that the increase for my hon. Friend's authority means just over double the current allocation, in line with the national trend, from £12.7 million in 1996–97 to £26.3 million in 2001–02.
    For the provision of more affordable housing, we have doubled the allocation to the Housing Corporation for new investment through registered social landlords. We expect that to lead to a significant improvement in the output of affordable social housing in the next three years.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Will the Minister give more help to housing associations, which, in partnership with local authorities, occasionally provide housing for
    194
    single people? For example, in my constituency Quest housing has done a remarkable job. Will that work be extended?
    Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend will have heard me say in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), we have doubled the Housing Corporation's allocation for funding of registered social landlords. Total provision will rise from some £690 million in the current year to more than £1.2 billion at the end of the three-year spending review. The money will be available for new investment by housing associations, and local authorities will be able to use their enhanced housing investment programme allocations in the form of local authority housing grants to support similar initiatives.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to ensure that there is enough investment in social housing for them to honour their commitment to bring all council housing up to a decent standard within 10 years?
    My right hon. Friend said earlier that council tenants would decide the future of their housing. If tenants vote against stock transfer, will the amount that would have been available for that process be available for investment in housing that remains in council ownership?
    Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend says, we believe that it is for tenants to determine the best option. We have provided four options for the future of council housing, all of which include increased resources.
    It is right for tenants to decide in the light of local circumstances. We expect about 200,000 properties to transfer from local authorities to registered social landlords, but that will be determined by tenants. We expect substantial investment through the new major repairs allowance, thereby enabling local authorities to improve the condition of their stock. We expect a take-up of the new arrangements for arm's-length companies, under which local authorities will qualify for additional capital allocations; and we expect increased allocations through the fourth option, the private finance initiative.
    By means of a range of different provision, we will ensure a substantial increase enabling us to meet our target of bringing all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010.

    Railtrack
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: When he last met representatives of Railtrack to discuss investment in the rail network. [143971]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Ministers meet Railtrack from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest. Most recent meetings have been in the forum of the rail recovery action group.
    Mr. Robathan: The news today is full of the crisis in investment in the railways. [Laughter.] As I have said, the news today is full of the crisis in investment in the railways. Can the Minister explain how the Government's intervention in the make-up of the board of Railtrack—

    195
    which has resulted in a 10 per cent. drop in the share price—will help to lever-in private investment, which is necessary for the Government's 10-year plan?
    Mr. Hill: It is a bit of a liberty for a representative of the Conservative party to talk of a crisis in the railway industry. It was, after all, the Conservatives who undersold Railtrack for £1.9 billion in a botched privatisation that left the rail network starved of investment.
    When the Tories left office, Railtrack was £700 million behind with its rail investment, which the Rail Regulator described as wholly unacceptable, notwithstanding the clear difficulties experienced in the rail industry—difficulties experienced by Railtrack this year.
    So far, Railtrack has invested £1.2 billion in the industry. At the end of this year, it will have invested £2.5 billion. Such levels of investment are unprecedented: they did not occur under British Rail, or under the previous Government.
    Mr. Peter Snape: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of chronic under-investment in the rail industry goes back at least two decades, and pre-dates the botched privatisation by a long time? Will he reiterate, for the benefit of those who may not have heard or understood him earlier, that investment is currently at historically high levels? Will he confirm for those of us who worked for the railways that people who call for the renationalisation of the industry must convince us that the Treasury will make a better fist of running it in the future than it ever did in the past?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is true that we are now experiencing unparalleled levels of investment in rail infrastructure. As for my hon. Friend's remarks about the oft-mentioned probability of renationalisation, the Government have no such plans. The rail industry has experienced sufficient instability in the aftermath of its fragmentation into 100 pieces by the previous Conservative Government. The cost of renationalisation would amount to at least £5 billion, all of which would go into the pockets of shareholders. We believe that, for such sums, there are better investment purposes in the rail infrastructure.
    Mr. Don Foster: Notwithstanding the Minister's view on Railtrack's position, does he accept at least that the City has, in effect, put Railtrack on the critical list, its credit rating might be downgraded and there is even talk of Railtrack pulling out of the second stage of the channel tunnel rail link? In those circumstances, what will the Government do? In particular, if part of the solution is to speed up already planned public investment in Railtrack, will the Minister at least agree to match that investment with increased public control over how the money is spent?
    Mr. Hill: As for Railtrack's financial position, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that yesterday Railtrack announced that it accepted the Rail Regulator's review of its access charges. It is looking for a successful conclusion of discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government on the timing of certain payments due under the review. The option of an interim review of on-going maintenance costs and other matters with the Office of the Rail Regulator remains open.
    196
    The Government have told Railtrack that, in the next few months, we shall hold discussions with it in good faith, but that we cannot anticipate the outcome of those discussions.
    Mr. David Chaytor: May I tell my hon. Friend about a particular transport difficulty in my constituency of Bury. North? It is possible to travel from the centre of Bury, South into Manchester, via the excellent Metrolink; and it is possible to travel from the centre of Bury, North to the very important town of Ramsbottom, via the East Lancashire railway; but it is not possible to travel from Ramsbottom into Manchester. Does he share my passion to renew for the citizens of Ramsbottom the rail link directly into Manchester that was cut by Dr. Beeching almost 40 years ago?
    One of the options currently under discussion to re-establish the link is to gain access to track into Manchester for which Railtrack is responsible. Will my hon. Friend assure us that, in future discussions with Railtrack, integration with light railway systems and preservation of railway systems—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman wants from the question.
    Mr. Hill: Mr. Speaker, as you very well know, as an old railway man myself I am extremely keen to see the restoration of any rail links where possible. I dare say that if I represented Bury, I would share my hon. Friend's passion for the restoration of the Ramsbottom link. A number of options are available for the restoration of such links. I recommend that he deals with his local authorities in investigating the possibility of a rail passenger partnership.
    Mr. Robert Syms: The Government must have had confidence in Railtrack's investment programme or, on 16 November, they would not have produced a DETR press release stating that
    The Prime Minister today called industry heads to a meeting at Downing Street
    on the rail recovery programme. The release clearly stated:
    The recovery plans will deliver:
    … sustainable timetables, which will be in force for all train companies from Monday—
    that was two months ago—
    with the prospect of steady improvements over the coming weeks
    and that
    virtually all serious current disruptions will have been dealt with by the end of the year.
    The end of the year has come and gone, but most passengers do not notice any great improvement. Indeed, looking at the Deputy Prime Minister's expression in today's Daily Mail, I do not think that he believes that things have improved. We now have a new date—Easter—for improvements. Do the Government consider that date to be the judge and jury of their stewardship of the rail industry?
    Mr. Hill: As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister explained in answer to a previous question, the announcement before Christmas was made on the basis of

    197
    promises made by the late chief executive of Railtrack. We are now aware, of course, that there is a promise from Railtrack that 85 per cent. of the system will be returned to normal by the end of this month, with the prospect of the entire system operating normally by Easter. We take that promise very seriously and we expect the rail industry to deliver on it.

    Aircraft Fumes
    Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will list the types of aircraft which exude smoke odours and fumes into their cabins. [143972]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The safety regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority receives reports of smoke, odours and fumes entering the cabins of all UK-registered passenger aircraft types. Analysis of the 171 incidents reported in the year ending 30 June 2000, resulting from a variety of causes, indicated no significant pattern regarding aircraft type. Only 14 related to oil contamination and none suggests any risk to health and safety.
    Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend have any knowledge or figures on incidences where the cabin crew or the pilot became ill from causes unknown? Does he have a view on today's tabloid headline in the Daily Express about deep-vein thrombosis and whether the figures purported in that article are truisms or, as I think, guesstimates?
    Mr. Mullin: As I said, none of the 171 incidents reported in the year up to 30 June 2000 was deemed to pose a serious risk to the health or safety of pilots. Should an incident pose a serious risk to health or safety, the Civil Aviation Authority would oversee a more detailed investigation. Let me take the opportunity to comment on the irresponsible story in the Daily Express this morning. It was based almost entirely on the word of one Mr. Farrol Khan, who runs something called the aviation health institute, of which, so far as we can tell, he is the only member. Mr. Khan gave evidence to the excellent inquiry into aviation health conducted by the Lords Select Committee, which described his evidence as
    nonsense … careless with facts … we ha ye been concerned at the confused thinking, lack of substance and erroneous statements in some of the other material presented to us and the public by Mr. Khan, the institute's founder director—
    and only director, as far as we can tell. It continued:
    In spite of his evident enthusiasm for his cause, sadly we have not found him to be a reliable source or scientific and medical information.
    This is a serious issue. It is right that it should be taken seriously. The Government are taking it seriously, but foolish reports of this nature are not helpful and any evidence from Mr. Khan should come with a Government health warning attached.
    Mr. John Bercow: How many complaints from members of the public have been received about smoke odours and fumes in aircraft cabins? How do those figures compare with the number of complaints received over, say, the past three years from members of the public, passengers on aircraft who have
    198
    suffered colds, coughs, sore throats and other ailments as a result of the increasingly unsatisfactory circulation of air on aircraft?
    Mr. Mullin: As I said, 171 incidents have been reported from all sources, including members of the public. I do not have a breakdown as regards air quality. The Lords Select Committee produced an excellent report, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman. The Government are taking it seriously. We have commissioned research to see what gaps there are in our knowledge, and we shall take any measures that are necessary. However, it is possible to exaggerate in this area and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will keep a sense of perspective.

    Regional Air Links
    Mr. David Stewart: If he will make a statement on regional air links with Heathrow Airport. [143973]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government acknowledge the social and economic benefits of air links between London and the regions of the United Kingdom. However, demand for take-off and landing slots at Heathrow greatly exceeds capacity. Slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. The Government have very limited powers of intervention; to date, they have concluded that no regional air services into Heathrow qualify for a public services obligation, which would enable slots to be protected.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer. Does he share my view that regional air links are crucial for business, for tourism and, indeed, for inward investment, but that there is a worrying trend for carriers to cut regional air services in favour of more lucrative international destinations? May I press my hon. Friend on public service obligations? Does he agree that they are the only real way to guarantee a future for rural, regional air services?
    Mr. Mullin: We certainly accept that there is a case for good regional air services into London. What we do not accept—as my hon. Friend will recall from the discussions we held when he came to see me—is that all those services can go into Heathrow, which is heavily over-subscribed.

    199
    Regions must wean themselves off Heathrow and consider not only the other big London airports, but other solutions—such as developing international services out of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester or Newcastle. That is where the future lies, given the heavy congestion in our airspace. I understand that the
    200
    highlands and islands airports are exploring the potential for direct flights between Inverness and Amsterdam. That is a sensible solution to the difficulty outlined by my hon. Friend. However, as far as I am aware, there is no threat to the four flights a week from Inverness to Gatwick.

Bedford Hospital
3.31 pm
Dr. Liam Fox(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed inquiry into the storage of corpses at Bedford hospital.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): As Members are aware, last week the bodies of certain deceased patients were inappropriately kept in a chapel of rest at Bedford hospital.
Let me say at the outset that what happened at Bedford hospital was totally and utterly unacceptable. Patients and their families have a right to be treated with dignity and respect at all times, in all parts of the national health service. In this case, they were not. We have a responsibility to get to the bottom of what went wrong in Bedford.
Over the weekend, an investigation was begun by the eastern regional office of the NHS executive. An initial report was made verbally to the NHS chief executive, Mr. Nigel Crisp. The final report of the full investigation will be published. I will ensure that it is placed in the Library.
I am advised by Mr. Crisp that the initial findings on this incident identified a failure of management within the trust. The trust chief executive, Mr. Ken Williams, has stepped down. In the circumstances, that was the right thing to do.
In the past, there were no clear guidelines about how dignity and respect for deceased patients should be ensured. The NHS now has guidelines that emphasise the need for standards to respect patients' dignity. The guidelines were issued by my Department to every hospital in May last year. The guidance was repeated in November last year. In Bedford, that guidance was not adequately implemented.
The preliminary inquiries appear to show that in the past, when the mortuary facility was full, the deceased were kept in the chapel of rest. Following the issue of guidance in May, however, an extra purpose-built mortuary facility was purchased it a cost of about £20,000. I am advised that the additional facility was at no stage full. It was functioning normally, apart from a minor problem with the doors that was reported on Monday of last week, but final action about that was not taken until last Thursday. During that period last week, bodies were placed inappropriately in the chapel of rest. No policies and procedures were in place in the hospital to ensure that the bodies of deceased patients were treated with dignity and respect at all times. This was not a cash problem in the hospital; it was not a capacity problem in the hospital: it was a management problem in the hospital—a failure to implement clear national guidelines and resolve a clear local problem immediately. The issue should and could have been sorted out on the spot.
Instead, deceased patients were denied their dignity. That should never happen in any part of the NHS, and those who say that what happened in one part of Bedford hospital is a reflection of what happens throughout NHS hospitals are simply wrong. They do not do justice to the efforts of the 1 million people who work in the health service, who strive day in, day out to maintain and to raise standards for patients.
202
It is deeply regrettable that decisions taken inside Bedford hospital prevented deceased patients from receiving the respect that their relatives had every right to expect from an NHS hospital. Yesterday, the NHS chief executive wrote to all trusts reminding them of their duty to treat the deceased with dignity and sensitivity, in line with the guidance that we issued last year.
The Health and Safety Executive will visit Bedford hospital on 18 January. The independent inspectorate for the NHS, the Commission for Health Improvement, will begin its inspection on 29 January. This matter will now be covered as part of its wider inspection of the hospital.
The events that took place in Bedford last week should never have happened, and need never have happened. I am deeply sorry that they did.
Dr. Fox: I think that everyone would accept that what we have witnessed is indeed a national scandal, and we all wish to send our sympathy to the relatives whose loved ones were treated so appallingly; we can only imagine their distress.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that such events have been going on for years at Bedford hospital, summer and winter? How often has the same thing happened? The shortage of pathology facilities has been raised by consultants, but not until the pictures appeared in the papers was any action taken. Indeed, it seems that, yesterday, the most urgent task for the consultants was to find out who had leaked the picture.
Is it true that the hospital's chairman was also asked to resign, but declined to do so? What contact has the NHS had with relatives who may be seeking to take legal action? How many other hospitals have similar pathology problems, and how many other scapegoat resignations can we expect? The Secretary of State said nothing about a proposed inquiry, despite the fact that that possibility has been widely mentioned in the newspapers.
These events are symptomatic of a wider problem. Indeed, one of the hospital consultants said that health service managers were being prevented from spending funds on pathology facilities, but scapegoated when problems arose. He continued:
The Government forces the managers to spend money on political initiatives such as the waiting list initiative, rather than on improving pathology facilities … We see pathology as a priority but Mr. Milburn … would rather it was spent on treating non-urgent cases within 18 months.
The Secretary of State is right to say that what happened was not caused by a cash problem—but it is not simply a local problem either. The NHS is being used to deliver ministerial targets, rather than dealing with the clinical problems of doctors and their patients. There is no point in the Secretary of State trying to hide behind the good reputation of medical staff, when his policy is undermining their value.
The Prime Minister talks about patients being treated on the basis of clinical priority, yet the Secretary of State sends in waiting list hit teams to ensure that those in the NHS do his bidding. The simple truth is that the Government have increasingly appointed Labour party stooges to run the health service, as Dame Rennie Fritchie said in her damning report. Bedford hospital's chairman, who is a serving Labour county councillor, must not be involved in, or in charge of, any inquiry.

203
This horrendous episode has blown the lid on the Government's incestuous and corrupting running of the NHS. This is one occasion when the Secretary of State cannot blame the previous Government, funding or the management. These are his priorities, carried out by his people, on his watch, and it is his responsibility.
Mr. Milburn: On the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, the anecdotal evidence shows that this sort of practice has been going on for a number of years, but I am absolutely determined to get to the bottom of it. I hope that the investigation will report next week, and when its report is published and laid before the House, right hon. and hon. Members will be able to see for themselves exactly how long the practice has been going on. Let me emphasise that this sort of practice has absolutely no place in a modern national health service, and we will do everything that we can to help to eradicate it.
On the investigation's independence, I made it clear in my statement that an investigation is being undertaken, and the work of the independent inspectorate, the Commission for Health Improvement, CHI, will complement it. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the commission—in Committee during the passage of the Health Act 1999 he opposed its establishment—will publish its conclusions. Again, I give an undertaking that those conclusions will be published in full. Although CHI's final conclusions are not normally placed in the Library, I will do precisely that in this instance. I am not aware of whether the chairman was asked to resign, but the investigation will no doubt reveal that. Again, the report will be published in full and made available to hon. Members.
Many people in the House and outside will conclude that, given the circumstances that we are discussing, it was a mistake for the hon. Gentleman to indulge in a party political tirade. What happened in Bedford was wrong. It should have been avoided. It could have been avoided. It is now being dealt with, but it is simply not true to say that it is typical of NHS staff or the wider health service; nor do I believe that it negates the real progress and improvements that are taking hold in many parts of the NHS thanks to the investment and the reforms that the Government are making.
Mr. Patrick Hall: May I tell my right hon. Friend that after the understandable shock and amazement at the events at Bedford hospital last week, most people, including the relatives of those who unfortunately died at the hospital during the past few weeks, want to see firm action to put the problem right? They want constructive, critical questions to be asked about the practice so that it does not happen again, and they will not be impressed by some of the cheap party political comments that we have just heard. Given that we are talking about the dead having been treated with a lack of respect and dignity, those comments have come across to me and many others as remarks that do not show respect to those people.
May I thank my right hon. Friend and his Department for the swift action taken yesterday to investigate events at Bedford hospital? May I thank him also for the speedy interim conclusions that were arrived at yesterday?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to extend CHI's already planned inspection of Bedford hospital at the end of the month to include the management problems
204
that are still being revealed. Does he agree that a root-and-branch shake-up of management practices at Bedford hospital is needed? Although there is always a case for more resources in the NHS, what happened last week was clearly nothing to do with resources; it was to do with management.
I seek my right hon. Friend's assistance with regard to the relatives of people who have died recently at Bedford hospital, some of whom have contacted me, to say that in the past day or so they have asked the hospital management whether their relatives were those left on the floor in the undignified way that has been described. Unfortunately, as of this moment, the hospital has been unable to give anyone any information; indeed, some have been told that information will not be available for at least a week. Will my right hon. Friend personally assist me in ensuring that my constituents get the information to which they are entitled, so that they can grieve?
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We spoke last night about some of these issues. He is right to emphasise the important point that this matter is not about cash, resources or the capacity of the mortuary facilities because, as I said, at no point were those facilities fully used. Still less is this matter about clinical priorities or waiting lists. This was a management failure in one part of one hospital. However, I suspect that it reveals a more endemic problem in the management culture in that hospital.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the concerns of his constituents and the many relatives who are still grieving and who are deeply upset about what has happened in Bedford. He is right to say that at the moment we are unable to say which patients were inappropriately kept in the chapel of rest. I asked that question of the eastern regional office of the NHS executive just a few hours ago. Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments, I will urge the regional office to try to get to the bottom of the matter and to find out precisely who was treated in that inappropriate and appalling fashion. As soon as we have answers, we will of course make them available to my hon. Friend and, mole important, to the relatives of those who died.
Mr. Nick Harvey: I echo the concerns of those who have said that the procedures at Bedford hospital failed to preserve the dignity of the deceased. However, I do not believe that their dignity will have been in any way enhanced by the contribution of the Conservative party spokesman, the hon Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
I welcome the fact that the chief executive at Bedford hospital has accepted responsibility in this matter and done the honourable thing by tendering his resignation. Many others in the health service have failed to do so when equally, if not more, significant errors have been made. I welcome the fact that the Government have twice issued guidelines about the dignity of the deceased. I welcome also the recent remarks of the chief medical officer, who signals that the Department of Health and the NHS will in future have a better attitude to the issue of organs that are retained after autopsies in hospitals. What steps can the Secretary of State take to ensure that all

205
hospitals throughout the country have adequate mortuary resources to give practical effect to the guidelines that he has issued?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his considered remarks. He is right to say that there are wider issues that we must think about, particularly in response to the Alder Hey inquiry, which has now reported. He is aware that, last week, the chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, Held a summit not far from this place about the terrible issue of retained organs in the NHS. I will seek to make a statement on that before too long.
As for the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman concerning mortuary facilities in the NHS, as I said in my statement, the chief executive of the NHS, Nigel Crisp, contacted all the trusts in the country yesterday, asking for assurance that the guidelines that we issued in May last year and repeated last November were being adhered to in all parts of the country. We have now received those assurances from all the trusts. I expect all the trusts to adhere precisely to the letter of that guidance, and I certainly do not want a repeat of this sort of incident in any part of the NHS anywhere.
Ms Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for his sympathetic, sombre and swift response to the incident, which is in sharp contrast to the reaction of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who has done a great disservice to, the families of the deceased.
May I tell my right hon. Friend that the whole issue has sent shockwaves, not just through that particular hospital, but through Bedfordshire health authority as well? Having spoken to the chair of the authority a short while ago, I am assured that a review is also being carried out at my own hospital, Luton and Dunstable hospital. It is a great pity and tremendous shame for us all that the failure to fix a door handle, which appears to be the root of the problem, should undermine tic badly positive work that is taking place in Bedfordshire health authority, not least in Luton and Dunstable hospital, where a new accident and emergency unit has jus opened.
Will my right hon. Friend therefore undertake to look more closely at the estate management and maintenance practices of health authorities and hospitals, which seem to underlie the problem? More particularly, will he assist in rebuilding morale and confidence—not just among staff, but among users of our health service—which is being badly undermined by the climate of fear that Conservative Members are seeking to engender?
Mr. Milburn: As for the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, preliminary investigation results indicate that that was precisely the problem. Unbelievably, there was a problem with the hinges and door handles in the temporary mortuary facilities, which could have been dealt with on the Monday. It was reported to the works department in the hospital then, but no one regarded it as sufficiently urgent to deal with immediately. As I said, it was not until late on Thursday that the problem was rectified. The problem could have be en rectified at once: it could have been rectified literally overnight.
There were some faults at those facilities, but what concerns me more is the fact that although there was a specific problem in one part of the hospital, there was no
206
reporting mechanism up the line to ensure that it was dealt with at a more senior level in the organisation. The investigation, led by Mr. Houghton, the regional director of the eastern regional office, will need to look at that extremely carefully, and it is right that it should do so. There are likely to be general lessons to be learned, and if there are we shall seek to make them available to the NHS in Bedfordshire and across the whole country.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Secretary of State rightly recognises that what happened at Bedford hospital was unacceptable. We all share and sympathise with the distress of families whose loved ones were affected. Does the Secretary of State accept that, when considering the chief executive, Ken Williams, who has taken the blame and resigned, we should remember that a great deal of good work has been done in Bedford hospital during the many years in which he has been in office? He has done much, above and beyond ordinary working hours, to help patients in the vicinity.
Is not the key question whether there are adequate mortuary facilities in Bedford hospital and hospitals throughout the country? It is plain from what I have been told that, until the supplementary mortuary was provided, mortuary facilities at Bedford hospital were inadequate.
Mr. Milburn indicated dissent.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I see that the Secretary of State is shaking his head, but will he ensure that the inquiry publishes the proportion of each hospital's mortuary facilities in relation to the population that it serves so that, in future, the House and the country can be satisfied that the NHS generally provides adequate facilities for the inevitable deaths that occur and for their proper and humane management?
Mr. Milburn: I am sure that, as a result of the investigation, there will be some lessons that we will want to extend across the NHS, but, with the greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he is wrong about mortuary capacity in the hospital. As I understand it, the sequence of events is this: there had been problems, perhaps going back over several years, and the investigation will get to the bottom of that. In 1999, the hospital installed an additional temporary mortuary facility. Last year, it decided to purchase that temporary mortuary facility rather than rent it again.
As I understand it, the permanent mortuary facility at Bedford hospital has 24 places. The additional capacity that has been made available over the past few months has an additional 15 places. In other words, there are places for 39 deceased patients. At no point last week was all that capacity being used. That is the essential point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind. It was nothing to do with cash. It was nothing to do with capacity. It was nothing to do with a shortage of resources. It was everything to do with the fact that a very small problem became a very big problem for many patients and their relatives.
Mr. Brian White: Last night, I received an e-mail from a constituent whose uncle died at Bedford hospital last week. She says:
As someone who voted labour for the first time … I don't want any more privatisation—what we've had so far hasn't worked.

207
What I do want is … a real commitment to increased public service spending whereby the emergency which existed at Bedford can never happen again.
Will the Secretary of State deal with the perception to which he has referred? Funding was not the problem, but, as the comments of the Opposition spokesperson showed, everything that goes wrong in the health service is automatically turned into a funding issue. Will he assure the House that he will deal with the perception held by the general public as well as the reality of what he has discussed?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In this case, we should all dwell on the facts of the matter. In this case, I believe that making generalisations and party political generalisations, from either side of the House, is peculiarly unhelpful. If people stop to examine the facts and what went wrong, they will quickly realise that, despite the generalisations and sweeping accusations that are flying around the Chamber and the media, those comments are wrong. That is why we have tried to act as quickly as we can.
When I first heard about the matter on Sunday, I contacted the NHS chief executive, Nigel Crisp, and asked him to get on to it and undertake the investigation straight away. To his credit and to the credit of the eastern regional office of the NHS executive, they did so immediately and made contact with Bedford hospital. As a consequence, I have been able to say some of what I have said today. The truth is that we shall have to wait a while before we get the full results of the investigation. If, at that point, Members on either side of the House want to make sweeping generalisations, that will be a matter for them to determine. At this stage, we do not have all the facts, and what facts we have suggest that there was a management difficulty in a part of the hospital. The problem was that it was not gripped at the top of the hospital.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Pending the publication of the report, many will accept the Secretary of State's initial assurances that there was a failure of management and that sufficient mortuary facilities were available. Will he turn his mind to a broader connected issue? There will be times when hospital mortuaries are full. Will he publish—at least for the eastern region, but preferably for the country—what mortuary facilities hospitals should turn to if their own mortuaries become full? If that information were in the public domain, it would provide considerable reassurance to patients and might help the Government to deflect some of the understandable criticism from distressed relatives. I hope that he will take that suggestion seriously.
Mr. Milburn: I am happy to consider that suggestion. I shall double check, but I think that in the guidance we suggested what hospitals should do if they were concerned about their mortuary facilities not being adequate, especially at certain times of the year. I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and reply to him in writing.
Dr. Howard Stoate: May I say how disappointed I am that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) tried to turn this tragic incident into another bandwagon? This is clearly a very serious issue. I am
208
pleased that my right hon. Friend supported the 1 million-plus staff who do an excellent job in the NHS. Does he recognise that such a tragic incident undermines public confidence in the NHS and reduces morale among its staff? What can he do following this incident to reassure people that, when their relatives enter the NHS to obtain treatment from dedicated staff, they will be looked after with respect and dignity, and that this incident is very unlikely to recur?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, we must take appropriate action where the problem has occurred, and that has happened and will continue to happen not just in the next few days but in the next few weeks, especially when the HSE and CHI undertake their inspections of hospital services in Bedford. It will be very important indeed to reassure the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), who use Bedford hospital, that this terrible event was out of the ordinary for that hospital.
Secondly, we must remind people that, however awful this incident was—it was dreadful and completely unacceptable—it is not the custom and practice of NHS hospitals, it is not the custom and practice of NHS staff and it is certainly not the custom and practice of the national health service as a whole.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State knows that in November last year I asked a number of parliamentary questions about mortuaries in the NHS following serious concerns about the mortuary at Trafford general hospital, which serves my constituents. At that time, it came to light from the responses to those questions that there is no national inspection regime for NHS mortuaries, and that the Department of Health cannot tell me which NHS mortuaries meet necessary minimum, standards. Surely that situation cannot be allowed to continue. Will the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for establishing which NHS mortuaries meet necessary minimum standards, and will he publish that information?
Mr. Milburn: We shall certainly consider those issues as part of the wider implications arising from the current investigation into the incident at Bedford hospital.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the Secretary of State share my unease, and perhaps surprise, that it was necessary to issue guidance about the correct treatment of bodies? He told us that that was done twice. Was that guidance issued because other concerns had reached him about the treatment of dead bodies? Although I accept what the Secretary of State says, and that for the purposes of these o changes we are not dealing with a funding issue; nevertheless, there must have been more than one person involved in the treatment of those bodies. There may have been tons or there may have been dozens. Although I accept that it was a management failure and not a financial problem, I have a lingering unease about the fact that so many people must have felt it appropriate to treat bodies in that way in Bedford hospital. That raises the concern that the practice is more endemic and widespread than the right hon. Gentleman would ever want it to be. Will he comment on those propositions?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the problem has occurred before. I am in no way making

209
a party political point, but there were issues before the general election about mortuary facilities being full at some hospitals. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) will remember that. It is, therefore, important that we invest appropriately. Part of the reason behind the guidance was to try to impress on local hospitals that they need to do just that because, in the end, they have to take the right local decision. I actually agree with what the hon. Member for Woodspring said in last week's detate on the Health and Social Care Bill. He conceded:
It is impossible to run an organisation that employs almost 1 million people from behind a single Minister's desk.—[Official Report, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360, C. 1096.]
We have a duty to locate respossibility where it belongs. The responsibility for rut ping individual local hospitals rests with people who work in them. The responsibility that we have to discharge as a national Government and, perhaps, as a Parliament, is to try to assure people that national standards are maintained as far possible, and that we police and monitor them so that patients in every part of the country are confident that they are getting access to full and fair services. That is precisely why we issued guidance twice last year.
Dr. Peter Brand: I strongly welcomed the guidelines when the Government issued them. Investment in mortuaries is always placed behind investment in, for example, children's wards. It is important that it is given due credence in our planning. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what happened at Bedford hospital was not unusual in the national health service or in private undertaking establishments during the winter? I am not saying that it is an acceptable practice, merely that it is not unusual.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the case is that it took a picture in the newspapers, which really denied those people their dignity and respect, for action to be taken? I cannot condone what the press or, indeed, the person who took the picture did, but is it not sad that we do not have a better way of getting action when there is a problem than literally having a shroudwave on the front page?
Mr. Milburn: Much of what the hon. Gentleman says makes absolute sense. I very much lope that in hospitals up and down the country, those people who are responsible for running them and the clinicians who are engaged in providing such services realise the importance of them.
As for Bedford hospital, I understand that in the next financial year it will receive £1.5 million extra to spend on capital projects. It will be for that Hospital to determine where best to spend the extra investment. That is right and appropriate because the people who best know the needs of patients who use the hospital are the people who run the organisation—the doctors, nurses, managers and so on. It is our responsibility to give them the tools to do that job, such as the resources and the framework, including the national standards by which they should abide precisely to avoid some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Mr. Nigel Evans: It was an appalling photograph and I am sure that the whole House sends its condolences to the relatives of the deceased.
210
Bedford hospital may now receive inquiries from relatives of the deceased for information. Will the Secretary of State ensure that they get proper and accurate information and, indeed, any counselling that they may seek because of their distress? I heard him say that he believes the incident to be unique to Bedford hospital, and we can only hope that that is the case. Can he assure us that proper investigations will take place and that the procedure will be correctly followed by all hospitals? Indeed, what whistleblowing arrangements are available to anyone who works within the NHS who believes that procedures are not being properly followed, so that respect and dignity for the deceased can be restored?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. On the question of providing information to relatives, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford—many of his constituents have inevitably contacted his local offices—we will try to obtain what information we can. I am trying to impress on the hospital and the local health service that they need to get the appropriate information as quickly as they can to the relatives. That must be the right thing to do.
On the position in other hospitals, as I said in response to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), yesterday we asked trusts to assure us that the guidance that we issued in May and November 2000 had been and is being adhered to. We have received responses from all parts of the country, and I have received that assurance. As I am sure the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is aware, I have to rely on such assurances.
We have also issued clear guidance to the service on whistleblowing and stipulated that all trusts should have a policy in place so that staff at any level in an NHS organisation—be they the most senior or the most junior—have a legitimate opportunity to raise their concerns in public on behalf of the public. I expect that to be the position in Bedford and in every hospital in the land.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I agree with the Secretary of State that this is a serious matter that should be properly investigated. However, will he please explain how CHI can carry out an independent inquiry when the commission is not an independent body, but is obliged to take instructions from the Government?
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Lady is wrong about that. CHI is independent from Government in precisely the way that the inspectorate—
Mrs. Laing: No, it is not.
Mr. Milburn: With respect, when the hon. Lady asks a question, I shall answer it if she gives me the opportunity to do so. CHI is independent in precisely the same way as Ofsted is independent in relation to schools. CHI is not run by me or the Government; it is run by the people who are responsible for running its services. It reports independently and it publishes its own conclusions and findings.
Let me be clear. The hon. Lady wants to have her cake and eat it. She wants me to instruct CHI to do something, and I have done that. I said that it should take on board the events that have happened in the past week in Bedford

211
in the inspection that it will carry out from the end of this month. That is the right thing to do. As I said to the House, alongside the normal procedure of the commission publishing its conclusions, I will also, as a matter of courtesy to the House, make those conclusions available in the Library so that all Members can see for themselves what the results of the independent inspection in Bedford throw up.

Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill
4.13 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
That the proviso in paragraph (2)(ii) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) shall not apply to the Children's Commissioner or Wales Bill.
Paragraph (2)(ii) of the Standing Order provides that
for the consideration of any public Bill relating exclusively to Wales, the committee shall he so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.
We have considered the implications for the Bill of the Standing Order and we believe that the paragraph should be disapplied. If the Committee were so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales, it would be very large and unwieldy. In addition, even if we added hon. Members to make it a Committee of 50, it would not be possible to achieve a political balance that reflected that in the House.
This is a small Bill of only eight clauses, but it is an important one for Wales, with wide-ranging implications for the welfare and interests of children in Wales. Many Members sitting for Welsh constituencies will have a keen interest in the Bill, bat they will have an opportunity to contribute to the Second Reading debate and to be involved on Third Reading and on Report.
The Committee needs to be kept small and focused and it needs to reflect the political balance of the House, so as to ensure that there is a full and frank debate on the Bill's provisions. In the interests of efficiency and of achieving a political balance that reflects that of the House, I commend the motion to the House.
4.15 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: This is the first Wales-only Bill since devolution, so the motion is, constitutionally, important. That will become clear as we proceed with the Bill because one of the questions that Conservative Members will ask is why similar provision has not been made for England.
My position on the Bill is clear. I was a member of the Select Committee on Health that recommended such a commissioner for England and Wales. Furthermore, the Opposition made it clear during the passage of the Care Standards Act 2000 that they envisaged a role for this form of official.
Under the Government of Wales Act 2000, the National Assembly has powers to make and amend secondary legislation, but can only request primary legislation of this House. We believe that it is appropriate that legislation that affects England and Wales should be considered by a Committee of Members from England and Wales. For the avoidance of doubt, I refer to clause 8(4), which states:
This Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
There is, however, a certain irony in these proceedings. On 9 June 1992, during the passage of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, the Secretary of State for Wales, when he was Opposition spokesman on Welsh affairs, said:
In April 1907, the then President of the Board of Education, and my direct predecessor as Member for Torfaen, Mr. Reginald McKenna, spoke in the House on behalf of the Government and in support of Standing Otter No. 86, which the Government, in their arrogance, are proposing to abandon. The House believed 85 years

213
ago—and made that belief resolute by a Division—that Welsh Members should have the same rights and privileges as their Scottish counterparts …—[0fficial Report, 9 Jun 1992; Vol. 209, c. 251.]
The Secretary of State—as he now is—went on, at column 252, to say that the circumstances then were different. They were also completely different when the House—under a Labour Government—discussed the Welsh Development Agency Bill in June 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Bill in July 1976. Those Bills were supported by Members on both sides of the House. There is clearly a parallel with that today.
There is an inconsistency in the Standing Order, which we might consider at a later stage, because we are now in a post-devolution situation. Standing Order No. 86(2)(i)—the provision that precedes the one that we are debating and which applies to Scotland—is clearly redundant. I suggest that paragraph (2)(ii) might also be redundant. I seek an assurance of the Minister that members of the Committee should be drawn from England and Wales, and not from Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give me such an assurance, and, on that basis, we are content with the motion.
4.18 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for having the courtesy to speak to the motion. Too many motions have been moved formally in the past, and I am pleased that he attempted to justify the provision. That is welcome.
The Secretary of State has missed the reason why we support the motion, which is set out in the debate to which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred. The Secretary of State—as he now is—said in that debate:
All those years ago, Members believed that argument was right, and we do not believe that it has changed with the passage of time.—[Official Report, 9 June 1992; Vol. 209. c. 251.]
The Secretary of State should explain what has changed with the passage of time between 1992 and today. I suggest that the change involves flu establishment of the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly has debated the Bill and the principles behind it, supports it and wants to see it passed as swiftly and effectively as possible. That extra legislative scrutiny has been introduced, and has worked on the Bill, so my colleagues and I will support the motion tonight, on this occasion only.
We do not agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset that Standing Order No. 86 (2)(ii) is necessarily redundant. There may come a time when the House will debate Wales-only legislation that has not been debated by the National Assembly and has not had the democratic scrutiny that the Secretary of State wanted in 1992, and which I hope he still wants.
Mr. John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that if we passed the motion it would save a fair amount of time. Will he give us an idea of how much less time it would take to pass the legislation if we adopted the motion?
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to trespass on what the Secretary of State said, because I accept the argument that he advanced when he opened the debate. The motion will speed up the Bill's passage, but, importantly, it will not do so to the detriment of democratic scrutiny by Welsh
214
Members because, in the face of opposition from the Conservative party, the National Assembly for Wales has been established and has allowed that element of democratic scrutiny to take place.
I am content for the motion to be passed, because we shall do an additional job in scrutinising the Bill in Committee. I hope that members of the Committee will work in tandem with ideas emerging from the National Assembly. If they fail to do so, the whole House will have a chance to amend the Bill on Report.
I hope that the Secretary of State will echo those views and will say clearly that this is a one-off, because of the circumstances in which the Bill has been formulated—through the processes of the National Assembly for Wales. In that context, on this occasion, we shall support the motion.
4.21 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: What I suspect some hon. Members thought would be a quick, uncontroversial nod-through has turned into an important debate, because the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has given the lie to the whole thing.
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I echo what the hon. Gentleman said and pay tribute to the Secretary of State for doing us the courtesy of coming to the House and, briefly but succinctly, setting out on the Government's behalf what lies behind the motion. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I wish that some of his colleagues would follow his example. Perhaps he will have a word at the next Cabinet meeting and say that some measures might get through the House much more painlessly if some of his colleagues did us the courtesy of explaining what they were up to, instead of trying to smuggle things through in the shifty, surreptitious way that has become the practice of the Government.
On the face of it, the motion appears to be a pretty bland measure about which we should not be too worried. The hon. Member for Ceredigion said, "It will be all right, just this once", but as I was listening to the Secretary of State the word "precedent" was floating through my mind, and I began to ask myself three questions. First, why do we have the Standing Order? Secondly, if it is redundant, why have we not revisited it since devolution? Thirdly, what is so special about the motion that would require a rescinding of the Standing Order, and what are all the implications of that?
The Bill may well be one of the less political Bills that the House has had to consider, in which case it is ironic that the Secretary of State should have been so anxious to ensure a proper party political balance on the Standing Committee. It is the wrong way round. Here is a Bill that, on the face of it, may seem to be less party political than most, yet the Secretary of State wants to ask the House to lift the Standing Order so that it has proper party political representation. I am not sure that a Committee of, say, 50, which the Standing Order allows for, would necessarily be a bad thing in this case, because it would allow the unusually large number of Members—all, I suspect, from the same part of the United Kingdom—who, quite properly, are waiting to contribute to the debate, to take part in the Committee. The Secretary of State will be in a

215
very difficult position if he proposes a Committee of a size that might preclude some of his right hon. and hon. Friends from taking part.
Mr. John Bercow: Would such a large Committee—that is a possibility, and we shall have to see what transpires—provide a justification for a lengthier timetable, or possibly for more careful consideration by the Programming Sub-Committee? I am sure that that will have occurred to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Forth: I was going to move on to the matter of timing. We are being asked to make a decision on the important matter of the Standing Order before we know the size of the Committee. The Secretary of State did not reveal that to us. Perhaps even more important, he did not reveal the time that the Government will impose for consideration in Committee and, as important, for Report and Third Reading. The right hon. Gentleman's argument rested on the proposition that all the Members precluded from the Committee—all that we know about its size is that 50 Members will not serve on it, and we do not know how much time he will allow the Committee—would be able to bob up on Report and Third Reading to say their piece. Before I give my approval to the motion, I would like to know how much time the Government will give for Report and Third Reading.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: If Standing Order 86 is sacrosanct, why did the Government of whom he was a member set it aside on the Welsh Language Act 1993, the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993?
Mr. Forth: I am not saying that the Standing Order is sacrosanct. I am simply saying that it was the hon. Member for Ceredigion who said, "Let us lift it just this once; otherwise, the motion is a jolly good idea."
I do not have a fixed view on the way in which the matter is dealt with because, unusually for me, I do not have direct participation. I may even have off at least the early part of the evening. I understand that the Bill is important and that many right hon. and hon. Members will want to take part in the debate.
I have paid my little tribute to the Secretary of State and now I shall be slightly critical of him. He has given us only partial information. He has not told us how many Members the Government will impose on the House as members of the Committee.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I am listening with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, especially about the time that will be available to consider the Bill. Is he aware that on 7 November one of his party's colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales said:
Will you assure us—
the question was addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—
that every effort will be made to fast-track the Bill?
Is this a case of the right not knowing what the extreme right is doing?
Mr. Forth: I am not remotely interested in what the member of some assembly said. This is the House of Commons. From what little I understand of the National Assembly for Wales, it rightly has no legislative powers. We make law in this place. Until a Government or the people of Wales decide otherwise, that is how it will remain. The views of a Member of the Assembly are of no relevance to our deliberations. However, our views have relevance because we are the House of Commons and we are the people—at least for the time being, until the Government give the responsibility to Europe—who make laws in the United Kingdom.
The way in which we make laws is vital. I do not know how many Members now in the Chamber are prepared to buy a pig in a poke or accept what the Secretary of State says and wander off into the fog of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. I am not satisfied. How can we be satisfied that all right hon. and hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in the matter will have sufficient time and opportunity to give it their consideration and make their input if, for example, the Committee were to be very small or if consideration in Committee were to be very short? From what the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said, she seems to want the process to be "fast tracked".[Interruption.] I thought that she was quoting with approval. If not, I hope that she will tell us. I took it that she was quoting an obscure person with approval, and that that is how the matter rests.
Mrs. Lawrence: I quoted the Conservative Health spokesman from the National Assembly for Wales, Mr. David Melding, who was asking for the Bill to be fast tracked because of time considerations, respecting the fact that this place has responsibility for primary legislation, which is why we arc here. Given the opportunity to set the agenda within the United Kingdom, I would welcome the Bill being fast tricked because of what it can do for children in Wales.
Mr. Forth: I am now even more worried. I should have thought that fast tracking was the last thing that we want in respect of this Bill more than any other. Matters such as those with which the Bill deals must be carefully considered and scrutinised, and legislation on them should not be rushed into. It is unacceptable for the hon. Lady to suggest that such speed would be beneficial. Indeed, I would be surprised and disappointed if her parliamentary colleagues wanted to rush the legislation.
A number of questions have arisen to which we have no answer. The Secretary of State gave us partial information. I am sure that he did not intend to withhold information, but I hope that he will answer the questions for his colleagues, as much as for anybody else. The questions concern the size of the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill and the programming of the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. We must have information about those matters before we can make the important decision rescinding the Standing Order provision. We need that information whether or not the decision will apply only on this one occasion, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion hoped, whether or not it creates a precedent and whether or not such a precedent already exists, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) suggested. All those matters must be resolved before we can decide on the motion.
4.31 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: It is understandable that some hon. Members have reservations about the exceptional circumstances in which the motion has been proposed.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: I am sorry to intervene so soon on my hon. Friend, but I have a question: does he agree that there is something contradictory about the official Opposition's mild criticism of the Secretary of State's position? They have used the same tool to great effect in the past. Indeed, my predecessor, Alex Carlile, said so. Does he further agree that the Secretary of State should have a little humility about the matter, for the simple reason that he made great play of it in debates held in 1992 and 1993?
Mr. Livsey: The Secretary of State certainly dealt with the matter in that way.
The limited powers of the National Assembly for Wales mean that we have to consider the primary legislation in Westminster. However, the Bill's importance means that the Assembly has taken due cognisance of it, debated it and refined proposals for it. I believe that that is an adequate pre-legislative process for due consideration by the House. As things currently stand, the process is in line with that for primary legislation. The Waterhouse report made serious points and exposed serious matters regarding the care of children in Wales. It underlined the urgency of the issue. The Bill Is the first primary legislation on that issue and the Waterhouse report is applied exclusively—perhaps I should say inclusively—to Wales. Those are adequate reasons for agreeing the motion.
4.34 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I have no philosophical objection to changing procedures from time to time if circumstances warrant such change. I understand the cross-party feeling in Wales that the legislation should be agreed with all due speed, but I am sure that sensible care and attention is also desired. I regret the dispute between my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has done sterling work to assert against a reluctant Executive the right of the House to scrutinise and debate, and the desire of many Welsh Members of Parliament and Assembly Members for the Bill to be fast tracked, as the process is called. I hope that all would agree that the Bill should be dealt with expeditiously, but also sensibly and thoroughly.
One of the reasons for this little delay—the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst were a little short, by his usual thorough standards—is that, although the Secretary of State was, unlike some of his colleagues, generous enough to make a statement to the House about his intentions, he was not open enough to enable us to reply "That is a reasonable change; let us go ahead." As our short debate draws—perhaps—to a close, let me press him to try to reassure my right hon. Friend and others that there will be enough time for all Members with legitimate interests to express their views on Report and Third Reading, or that all those with such interests will be invited on to the Standing Committee and will have a chance to speak then. If we
218
knew how many members the Committee will have and what the true party balance will be, and were able to gauge that against the strength of feeling and the numbers in the House, we might feel reassured that the procedure was sensible, rather than another attempt by an Executive in a hurry to stifle legitimate debate.
I hope that at this late—but not too late—stage it will be possible to reassure Members who reasonably say that the House must undertake this legislative task, and must undertake it properly. We could, of course, read the report of the Assembly's debates, but there is nothing like hearing debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and being able to able to satisfy ourselves before voting.
I hope the Secretary of State will understand that these are reasonable fears. We need a decent length of time in Committee. We need reassurances about the balance of the Committee, and its ability to absorb what may be the different viewpoints and experiences of Members with a direct interest. I hasten to add that I shall not seek to be involved myself, because the subject is not a specialty of mine, but many others will. We also need to be reassured that there will be enough time for Members who are not privileged to sit on a Committee to make their points when it has completed its deliberations.
I give the Secretary of State two marks out of 10 for letting us know a little of his thinking when he wishes to change the House's procedures. Perhaps I will give him three marks, because it was slightly embarrassing for him to have to do that, in view of his past statements. If he wants the other seven marks, he really ought to tell us how long the Committee will have, who will be on it and why it will produce the right balance between scrutiny and the reflection of opinions in Wales.
4.37 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: The debate has been useful. It has given all Members an opportunity to understand why circumstances have changed since 1992, when I made my remarks from the other side of the House—which, incidentally, echoed what was said in 1907 by a predecessor of mine, the then Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represented North Monmouthshire.
The right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) raised a number of important constitutional issues, as did the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey).
What is the difference? Obviously, the difference is that the world has changed in constitutional terms: the way in which Wales is governed has changed. The existence of the Welsh Assembly and the settlement that accompanied its creation mean that Cardiff will deal with secondary legislation, while primary legislation remains a matter for the House of Commons.
That is the big change, but it must also be said that while some Bills have both an English and a Welsh context—we dealt with a number of such Bills last year—others, such as this, deal exclusively with Wales. In such cases, the procedures followed in the Assembly, and the procedures followed by the Government and the Assembly in drawing up the terms of the legislation, are uniquely different from the position before. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire spoke of an extensive process, to which I hope to refer later.

219
The procedures involved are indeed extensive, and have already given all the political parties in Wales an opportunity to deal with the issues in the Bill.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the legislative protocol between his Department and the Assembly is not quite complete yet? Members might feel more reassured about the change in procedures here when it is complete.
Mr. Murphy: I can confirm that, but the protocol is very close to completion. One of the reasons why it is not complete is that we are using the procedure for the first time only today. Today is the first occasion on which the House has considered an all-Wales Bill—as is its right—reflecting the National Assembly's wishes and desires. We have to learn from our experience. I hope that, within weeks, the protocol will be available for discussion.
The other issue is the nature of the process that will be used during the Bill's passage in the next weeks and months. Although right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned matters that I suspect should be dealt with in a later debate, I shall deal with one or two of them now.
Mr. Öpik: The Minister has clarified why he thinks that the position today is different from that which applied in 1992–93, and I accept the point. However, will today's debates serve as a precedent for similar future debates?
Mr. Murphy: No, but I shall address those issues in a moment.
I should like, first, to deal with the motion, which we shall debate later, and to furnish the House with more details. It is anticipated that, some time after 1 February, the Committee will report the Bill to the House. I understand that the usual channels are considering the composition of the Committee. Nevertheless, it will be composed of 16 members, of whom 10 will be Government Members and four will be official Opposition Members, with two members from each of the other two parties in the House representing constituencies in Wales.
As some hon. Members seem to be concerned about the time issue, I should re-emphasise my remarks on precedent and the nature of the proposed Standing Committee. As I shall explain in much greater detail on Second Reading, the Bill's provisions have not simply just appeared, but were considered at great length, in Cardiff, by all-party Committees of the National Assembly. The Bill does not establish the role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales; that has already been done. Many of the commissioner's functions are already on the statute book, and the provisions that we are discussing will merely extend the commissioner's powers.
220
As for the Standing Committee that will consider the legislation, about a year ago, the Procedure Committee considered whether the Welsh Grand Committee is the appropriate place in which to consider specifically all-Wales Bills on Second Reading and in Committee. I think that, occasionally, that Committee might be the appropriate place for such consideration. However, I also think that, at this early stage in the devolution settlement, we have to decide those matters Bill by Bill. We should work with the parties in the House to discover what they believe would be the best course of action in relation to time and to the composition of the Standing Committees, so that they include hon. Members from all parties who wish to be represented.
We should also bear in mind that, in addressing the various issues, ultimately we are a United Kingdom Parliament. Therefore, at this stage in the devolution process, it is not easy to be categoric about precisely how we will address these issues in future. However, in relation to representing the views of all the parties in the House and reflecting previous consultation in the National Assembly, I think that we are proposing the most appropriate way in which to consider the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
Mr. Redwood: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for sharing a little of the Government's confidence with the House; it is a model of how Ministers should do it. It would have been even easier if we had heard his comments at the beginning of the debate. I express sympathy with his view that these are early days, and that he should consider the issues as a United Kingdom Cabinet member and understand that the Bill is United Kingdom legislation. Will he confirm that it is this House that is charged with the sole responsibility for primary legislation, and that this House cannot rely on the debates and views of another place or another Assembly, however good or worthy they may be, because it is this House that has to take responsibility for the resulting legislation?
Mr. Murphy: I confirm that this House, exclusively, deals with primary legislation for Wales. I confirm also that such proposals are the result of a working partnership between the House, the Government and the National Assembly, and that they would not be a matter for the Government's programme unless there were such a working relationship and partnership.
I therefore hope that the House will be convinced by the points that I have made and that we shall proceed to Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the proviso in paragraph (2)(ii) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) shall not apply to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.

Orders of the Day

  Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill forms a major part of the strategy of the National Assembly for Wales to promote and safeguard the rights and welfare of children in Wales. The Bill also has considerable constitutional significance. It is the first Wales-only Bill to be introduced since the establishment of the National Assembly. It also represents the Assembly breaking new ground in devising a policy to create the first Children's Commissioner in the United Kingdom. Its introduction represents a very significant achievement for the devolution process in Wales and it proves that Wales can bring about radical change via Westminster.
  Change has been rapid as well as radical. I said earlier that I would set out the consultation process. The Assembly endorsed the report of its Health and Social Services Committee on a Children's Commissioner in plenary session in June last year. Already at that stage, amendments were in hand to give the commissioner initial powers within the scope of the—then—Care Standards Bill. These were enacted, with the result that the Assembly was able to announce the successful candidate to be the first Children's Commissioner for Wales in December. In the same month—just six months after the Assembly endorsed its report—this Bill to widen the commissioner's powers was introduced to the House. The speed of response is a tribute to the t co-operative working relationship between the Assembly and interested people and organisations in Wales, and between the Government and the National Assembly.
  The case for establishing a Children's Commissioner in Wales has its roots, before devolution in the Welsh Office social services White Paper "Building for the Future". It was echoed in calls for a commissioner from such bodies as Children in Wales, the Welsh Local Government Association, evidence to the North Wales child abuse tribunal, and the Welsh Affairs Committee of this House.
  Assembly manifesto commitments from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru included commitments to consider the establishment of an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales.
  I have to say that I am somewhat bewildered by the decision of the Conservative party effectively to oppose the Bill—even if that opposition is dressed up in the disguise of a reasoned amendment. It serves only to remind us all of why the people of Wales returned no Conservatives to this House at the last general election.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I ask the Secretary of State not to play politics with this issue. We are all keen to ensure that children in Wales—and everywhere in the United Kingdom—get the protection that they deserve. He well knows that we t tabled the reasoned amendment so that we can properly debate the issues. As I shall make plain in my speech, we want to strengthen the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, not to prohibit it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan I Haselhurst): Order. May I take the opportunity of that intervention to make
  222
  good my earlier omission and say that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition?
  Mr. Murphy: Your ensuring that the House is aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, gives me the opportunity to invite the House to reflect upon precisely what the amendment says. The nature of reasoned amendments—all of them—is that they start with the phrase
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the … Bill.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) may be able to clarify and explain that, but the fact that the reasoned amendment is on the Order Paper has caused considerable consternation in Wales among members of my party and his party in Wales. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman attempting to reconcile what are clearly major differences between himself and his party in the National Assembly.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the strengths of devolution is that an Assembly Committee dealing specifically with those issues has been able to discuss with all four parties involved—including Conservative representatives—what is needed to make the Children's Commissioner for Wales effective? Is it not a disgrace that, at this late stage, having had that opportunity in Wales, we see the domination of the Conservative party in England as it tries to put a spanner in the works?
  Mr. Murphy: As I pointed out to the House a few moments ago, we are all bewildered, perplexed and mystified as to why there has been the obvious change of heart that we shall hear about later from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley when he describes the nature of his amendment. The contrast with Labour is clear and stark; the Bill, like the Care Standards Act 2000, is the product of a strong partnership between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly Cabinet. That partnership is based on mutual trust and understanding and a shared desire to deliver for the people of Wales.
  It seems, however, that the Conservatives have no such desire. Although we await the hon. Gentleman's comments, it would seem, on the face of the matter, that their approach to the Bill is nothing but naked opportunism.
  Let me deal, precisely, with the amendment. First, it seems to ignore the nature of the legislation. Today, the House is not debating the principle of whether it is right to create the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales—we have already done that.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, yesterday in Wales, he took part in the launch of an extremely important document—the social exclusion report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which will, I hope, assist children in Wales. Does he want to comment on the fact that no Conservative Member bothered to turn up?
  Mr. Murphy: I should get into difficulty if I were to refer to the affairs of the Select Committee. However, the point has obviously been made.
  The Assembly has already appointed a commissioner. As the House is aware, today's debate is about an extension of the powers of that commissioner, but all

  223
  those powers are being extended within the same principles as were established by the Care Standards Act: the commissioner should deal with public bodies that are accountable to the National Assembly.
  Secondly, the amendment stands in direct contradiction of what Conservative Members have said for some time. It was, after all, one of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), now Leader of the Opposition, who established the Waterhouse inquiry with the support of both sides of the House. I paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman when we made a statement on the report. Do he and his party seriously ask us to undermine the first recommendation of that report—the establishment of an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales? Of course, we await the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley on that matter.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State mentioned the report of Sir Ronald Waterhouse. It was a catalogue of indictments and of the terrible abuses to which young men were subjected. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to paragraph 52.36, which states:
  We draw the attention of Parliament also to the abuse suffered by B between the ages of 16 years and 18 years … Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred.
  It is no good the Secretary of State coming to the Dispatch Box to tell us what a wonderful job the Government are doing; they used the Parliament Act to inflict the change in the age of consent—[Interruption]—in direct defiance of the recommendation of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who believed that it was absolutely necessary to preserve the age of consent to protect children. The Government are thus being two-faced on this matter.
  Mr. Murphy: I do not think that the people who spent many months—indeed, years—setting up the office of the Children's Commissioner would agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. David Melding, the Conservative Health spokesman in the Assembly, said:
  A fully effective Children's Commissioner will offer great support to parents without undermining the responsibility of the family in any way. The example of parents of children with special needs illustrates this. They will find a great friend and champion in the Children's Commissioner, and good wholesome family life will be enhanced as a result.
  That seems to stand in complete contradiction of the reasoned amendment, which suggests that family life will be adversely affected by the establishment of the Children's Commissioner.
  So, why has there been that sudden change of mind? Why have Conservative Members waited for five weeks since the Gracious Speech to announce their opposition to the measure? I suppose that desperate men resort to desperate measures. I take the point, but the reasoned amendment cannot be seen as anything other than immature, irresponsible and erratic.
  That is certainly the view of the Leader of the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly, who today told the media in Wales:
  224
  I was certainly not aware of any difference. Subsequently I found out there was a difference of emphasis but we are not going to change our position. We are not going to stand on our heads for anybody.
  In the Welsh Grand Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said:
  I re-emphasise that there is no conflict between my view and that of colleagues in the Welsh Assembly—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 11 December 2000; c. 26.]
  He could have fooled us.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State's revelations are amazing. Does he agree that all that raises the question of who will lead the Conservative party in Wales? Will a Conservative Member for an English constituency decide the policy of the Conservative party in Wales? Does that not show the Conservatives' death wish for any hopes that they may have of winning at least one seat in Wales?
  Mr. Murphy: I share the hon. Gentleman's ambition in that respect. We need to be told precisely where the Conservative party stands in relation to the Children's Commissioner and the Bill—and especially where its members stand in relation to each other. The Conservative party says one thing in the Assembly and another in the House of Commons, which causes nothing but confusion in people's minds about whether there is consensus about the Bill and the establishment of the Children's Commissioner.
  Mr. Evans: Never have I heard the Secretary of State spin so much; it is a shame that he has turned this Bill into a political football. I remind him that David Melding proposed the following amendment in the National Assembly for Wales:
  asserts the importance of the family in protecting and nurturing children and therefore believes that the remit of the Children's Commissioner should relate exclusively to children's services provided by public and other agencies.
  Mr. Murphy: I understand all that, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that it is not I who has turned the Bill into a party political issue. There is a reasoned amendment before the House, and it is as mystifying and bewildering to the people of Wales as it is to Members of this House, because for months there has been unanimity about the Children's Commissioner, both in the House of Commons and in the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman will have to explain his position later. Indeed, he will have to explain how Conservative Members intend to vote.
  The reasoned amendment fails to recognise the huge consultation process that has taken place in Wales over the establishment of the Children's Commissioner. The Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee took on the task of consultation, and the written consultation was followed up by sessions to hear all evidence.
  During that consultation, in February last year, the Waterhouse report on child abuse in north Wales was published. As is now well known, the first two

  225
  recommendations were about the creation of a Children's Commissioner for Wales. The report recommended that the commissioner's duties should include

  (a) ensuring that children's rights are respected through the monitoring and oversight of the operation of complaints and whistleblowing procedures and the arrangements for children's advocacy;

  (b) examining the handling of individual cases brought to the Commissioner's attention (including making recommendations on the merits) when he considers it necessary and appropriate to do so;

  (c) publishing reports, including an annual it report to the National Assembly for Wales.

  At that time, as the House will know, the Care Standards Bill was under consideration. The Government moved quickly to amend that Bill to reflect both Sir Ronald Waterhouse's recommendations about the establishment of the commissioner and the Assembly's policy of establishing a commissioner as soon as possible.
  The amendments that were tabled extended the commissioner's functions to give him or her a remit as wide as the scope of the Bill allowed—all social care services for children to be regulated under the Act in Wales. Those included children's homes, residential family centres, local authority fostering and adoption services, fostering agencies, voluntary adoption agencies, domiciliary care, private and voluntary hospitals and clinics, the welfare aspects of day care and childminding services for all children under eight, and the welfare of children living away from home in boarding schools.
  The commissioner's functions in respect of those services are contained in part IV of the Care Standards Act 2000. They include the review and monitoring of arrangements by the service providers to deal with complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy; the provision of advice and information; the examination, where the commissioner considers appropriate, of the cases of particular children who are receiving or have been in receipt of such services; the provision of assistance, including financial assistance and representation in relation to proceedings or disputes, or to the operation of procedures and arrangements monitored by the commissioner; and making reports, including an annual report to the National Assembly. All those functions and responsibilities, which have been set out in detail in the Care Standards Act, now lie with the Children's Commissioner in Cardiff.
  Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State referred to part IV of the Care Standards Act 2000. Did he mean part V?
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right; I meant part V, and I apologise to the House.
  As I told the House last March, the Government recognised that further legislation was needed to achieve the Assembly's aspiration to establish a Children's Commissioner for Wales with a wide-ranging scope. I made clear the Government's commitment to consider the Assembly's proposals urgently and sympathetically. The Bill represents the Government's response to the Assembly's vision of a Children's Commissioner. It is a vision of a champion of children in Wales who will promote their rights, raise the profile of children's issues and take an overview of the impact of policies and procedures across the services that affect them.
  I shall now outline the effects of those measures. The Bill is cast in the form of amendments to the existing provisions relating to the Children's Commissioner in the
  226
  Care Standards Act. That approach has enabled simplicity and concision in the Bill's drafting, given that so much material is already in the 2000 Act. The Bill will set out a ringing declaration of the commissioner's principal aim—to exercise all his functions with the aim of safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children in Wales. There could be no clearer declaration of intent than that the commissioner is intended to be a champion of children's rights with a wide-ranging remit.
  The Bill will introduce a power for the commissioner to review the effect on children in Wales of the exercise, or the proposed exercise, of any function by the Assembly and the other public bodies that it sponsors, such as local authorities and health authorities.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I absolutely welcome the Bill and dismiss the nonsense that we have heard from the Opposition, but is not there a possible flaw in the Bill, given that it relates only to services provided by the Welsh Assembly? Is not there a clear problem in that the commissioner, as envisaged in the Bill, will have no role in relation to extremely vulnerable young people, such as those who are dealt with under youth justice legislation?
  Mr. Murphy: I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes, and I intend to touch on them in a few moments.
  The powers include the making or the proposed making of subordinate legislation by the Assembly, which has shown its commitment to the commissioner by opening up its own activities to his scrutiny. The other public bodies involved will be not only those obviously connected with children, but a very wide range of organisations whose actions may impact on them, such as the Welsh Development Agency, Sports Council for Wales and National Museums and Galleries of Wales.
  The Bill will extend the commissioner's powers under the Care Standards Act 2000 to examine the cases of particular children and to assist in particular cases. The precise application of that power will depend on regulations to be made by the Assembly, but they could apply to the wide range of bodies to which I have referred, including the Assembly itself.
  The commissioner's power to consider complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy arrangements will also be extended under the Bill. That power will be applied to a far wider range of bodies in Wales that provide direct services to children, including local authorities, the NHS, GPs, schools and other education establishments and training organisations. The Assembly will again be one of the bodies subject to that function because, although it does not generally provide services directly to children, it delegates to, or contracts with, other bodies to do so.
  The Bill makes provision for the commissioner to require prescribed bodies to provide information to him if they are involved in the investigation of individual cases, or if their arrangements for complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy are being monitored. The bodies involved are potentially all those mentioned in the Bill. Failure to comply would lead to legal sanctions. That is evidence of the Assembly's commitment to creating a commissioner with real teeth, who will have to be taken into account.

  227
  The essence of the Bill is therefore its extension of the commissioner's functions to a far greater range of bodies and the new power that it introduces to review the effects on children in Wales of the exercise of functions by a very wide range of bodies.
  The vast range of services that impact on children and young people have been devolved and will be within the commissioner's formal responsibility. However, I turn now to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made a few moments ago in respect of non-devolved bodies.
  We must remind ourselves that less than a year ago there was no such person as a Children's Commissioner doing anything in Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom, and that it was only a matter of months ago that the commissioner dealt only with children in care. Now the House is being asked to consider extending the commissioner's powers to every aspect of the functions, responsibilities, duties and powers of the Assembly and every institution in Wales that has responsibility to the Assembly. Nearly all those bodies are devolved. We have gone a long way towards providing for those matters to be dealt with by the commissioner. As I said, a vast range of services are devolved. The appointment of the commissioner himself was the Assembly's responsibility, and the post is very much associated with the Assembly.
  Just because a matter is not within the commissioner's statutory remit does not mean that he will be debarred from making any comment whatsoever. He will have power to exercise functions that are incidental to his core functions. For example, in the course of his work the commissioner may receive representations from or on behalf of children about non-devolved matters that he may wish to bring to the attention of relevant Government Departments, and no one, but no one, will stop him indicating his views to those Departments in the process. That power would not give the commissioner substantive functions in non-devolved areas, nor would he have any formal power to require information to be provided in relation to such matters. However, it seems highly likely that Government Departments would react positively, given the profile of the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
  The commissioner may also formally bring to the Assembly's attention complaints and information that he receives about non-devolved matters; for example, through his annual report to the Assembly on his activities. The framework for that can be established through Assembly regulations. As a result, the Assembly itself may wish to consider and make representations on such matters to the Government of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Robert Walter: Is the Secretary of State unaware that in a communication to all Members about today's debate, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children says:
  The Bill falls short of the aspirations of the Assembly's vision of the Children's Commissioner as an independent champion …?
  The first item in the NSPCC's submission is that the Bill fails to
  give the Commissioner a right to comment on non-devolved matters and cross-border services.
  228
  I remind the Secretary of State that the final part of our reasoned amendment says that the Bill
  fails to take account of the responsibility of UK public bodies and agencies which are not subject to oversight by the National Assembly for Wales.
  Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that that shortcoming Bill should be dealt with in Committee?
  Mr. Murphy: It is a pity that the Opposition did not deal with the matter by amendments in Committee, rather than tabling the reasoned amendment and totally confusing the people of Wales. The hon. Gentleman has a point about the NSPCC. We have all received letters from that important body. However, its submission says also:
  The NSPCC welcomes the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. It is a welcome attempt to improve the wellbeing of Wales' children.

  Children in Wales also wrote to us all, saying:
  The appointment of a Children's Commissioner in Wales and the broadening of his powers in the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill is unanimously welcomed by children's organisations working in Wales.
  Of course, there will be differences of view and different aspirations. All those matters involve different aspects that, of course, can be debated on Report and in Committee. Not for one second does that mean, however, that people do not welcome the Bill, which proposes a huge extension in the powers of the children's commissioner.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State believe that a single one of those organisations in Wales is inclined to recommend that the House support the reasoned amendment tabled by Conservative Members?
  Mr. Evans: Go and join them then.
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) makes a fair point, and we shall listen with great interest to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley later.
  Until now, discussion has focused on the role of the commissioner in respect of child protection and, particularly, children looked after by local authorities. Those vital issues concern some of our most vulnerable children. However, it has never been the intention that the commissioner should take the place of existing statutory child protection bodies, or usurp the planned regulatory role of the care standards inspectorate for Wales. It is not intended that the commissioner should seek to take the place of existing complaints systems or routinely investigate cases directly. Indeed, the Assembly's report indicated that it expected the commissioner to undertake formal investigations only if a matter of principle was at stake; it is not envisaged that such investigations will be a routine part of his work. However, the Commissioner will play an important strategic role in ensuring the effectiveness of child protection systems in Wales.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the Children's

  229
  Commissioner for Wales. Given that case, will he talk to his colleagues in the Cabinet about the need for a children's commissioner in England?
  Mr. Murphy: Inevitably, those points will be made regularly during the passage of the Bill, as they were during the passage of the Care Standards Act. However, it is important that we understand that the creation of the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales sprang from a Welsh source. During the Assembly elections, our party—and, indeed, other parties—made it a manifesto commitment, and it is very much a Welsh-inspired post.
  That does not mean that, in the coming months, my colleagues in Government will not look seriously and intensively at the way in which the role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales will work. It is obviously for my colleagues then to consider how best to deal with the matter. The post is, as I say, very much a Wales-inspired appointment, which is why, when the people of Wales went to the Assembly elections, they voted for parties that said that they wanted to introduce such a Bill after those elections.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal—which, as he rightly said, was introduced under the Welsh Office of a previous Government, and was considered in great depth in Wales—may be looked at in relation to the regions of England, but not necessarily in relation to the whole of England? It would be sensible if the lessons that are learned and the models that are developed through the pattern of devolution in England were allowed to inform the debate that should rightly take place in different parts of England.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is in danger of being led astray.
  Mr. Murphy: Far be it from me to continue that trend, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wish to say that there are examples where England can learn from Wales, and vice versa. The existence of joint ministerial committees that deal with all the devolved administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and, indeed, of the United Kingdom Government, indicate that we take seriously the relationship and partnership with the new Administrations—the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies—that have been set up in the United Kingdom.
  It is also important to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) another major reason why the post of Children's Commissioner was set up: it was established in direct response to the first recommendation of the Waterhouse report, which was a specifically Welsh investigation into appalling child abuse.
  The commissioner will have to co-operate with a wide range of different bodies, but the Bill will go much further, by establishing a commissioner whose role could extend to all children in Wales and to all the policies and services for which the Assembly has a devolved responsibility. The Assembly has made it clear that that is where it expects the commissioner to carry out much of his valuable work. He will be able to review the impact on children and young people of the policies and procedures of a wide range of public bodies in education
  230
  and training, health care, transport, town and country planning, sport and recreation, economic development and many other areas.
  That power will enable the commissioner to raise the profile of children's issues and of children and to take an overview of how the actions of public bodies directly or indirectly affect them as they go about their daily lives. That role will distinguish the commissioner from any other public office holder in the United Kingdom.
  In line with the devolution settlement, the Bill, like the Care Standards Act, leaves as much as possible to the Assembly to determine in regulations. A key area for regulation is the involvement of children and young people. The commissioner is part of the Assembly's strategy for listening to children and ensuring that their voices are heard, and the report of the Health and Social Services Committee made clear the importance of children and young people informing the commissioner's agenda and being regularly consulted. Indeed, the Assembly has already been innovative in the sphere of public appointments by involving children and young people as an integral part in the selection of the first commissioner. The involvement of young people in the commissioner's work will be for the Assembly to determine in regulations made under the Bill.
  As I said, the Assembly has identified Mr. Peter Clarke, currently director of Childline, as the first Children's Commissioner. He is likely to take up the post in the spring and will plan to be fully operational as soon as possible. That process will inevitably take time; there is much work to do. Mr. Clarke needs to find a permanent location or locations, recruit his team and, crucially, establish and implement the mechanisms for keeping in touch with the children and young people of Wales.
  The Assembly also faces a considerable task in defining and consulting on the significant issues that have been left for it to determine in secondary legislation. All that means that the Children's Commissioner is likely to be fully functional in the summer or early autumn. Just over a year after the Assembly produced its ground-breaking proposal, that is exceptionally rapid progress.
  When the Children's Commissioner takes up his post, he will find that the Bill empowers him to take a pioneering role in promoting the rights and welfare of the children of Wales. He will have in his scope a vast range of activities and at his command real powers to require access to information. That adds up to a commissioner with the opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of all Welsh children.
  Wales is leading the way for the United Kingdom in developing the office of Children's Commissioner. I am sure that other parts of the United Kingdom will watch his progress with great interest. I believe that today is a historic day for children's rights, the National Assembly for Wales and the constitution of the United Kingdom. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill because it fails to assert the importance of the family in protecting and nurturing children; it fails to give families confidence that the Children's Commissioner will

  231
  protect the interests of their children whilst not impinging on the rights and responsibilities of parents in their relations with the public and other bodies within the scope of the Bill; because it will lead to duplication and confusion as to where responsibility for the welfare of children in schools lies; and fails to take account of the responsibility of UK public bodies and agencies which are not subject to oversight by the National Assembly for Wales."
  I am delighted to take part in the debate and welcome the Bill, but it is a great shame that the Secretary of State made his remarks in a manner that we usually associate with Millbank and the high professionals of the spin doctors. He did not need to do so, as he will be able to detect from what I say and from our approach in Committee, which will be extremely constructive to ensure that we have a Children's Commissioner worthy of all the children of Wales.
  A number of comments have already been made. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who was in the Chamber, is to introduce a ten-minute Bill dealing with a children's rights commissioner, and I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) in an Adjournment debate on the Children's Commissioner. As the Secretary of State knows, the reasoned amendment is a device that an Opposition use. When he was in opposition and sitting on this side of the House, which he will be doing again shortly, he used that same device. The difference now is that he is sitting on that side of the House and saying, "We are the masters now." That is the only major difference with regard to the device of a reasoned amendment.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: We await the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest. There is a big difference, and we referred to it in the previous short debate. Since 1997, there has been a devolution settlement, and the Assembly, in conjunction with Parliament and the Government, has sponsored primary legislation. His reasoned amendment could, technically, scupper the Bill and cause difficulties for our colleagues in Cardiff, the people of Wales and those who want a Children's Commissioner.
  Mr. Evans: I do not accept that. We have tabled an amendment on Second Reading and we will table amendments in Committee. The suggestion that amendments cannot be tabled to improve legislation—which is what we want to do—is an insult to the charities in Wales that have briefed us on the improvements that they want to be made to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we will examine non-devolved powers in Committee to ensure that the Children's Commissioner has the proper powers. A number of Labour Members will table amendments in Committee to try to strengthen the Bill, and I look forward to that debate. We do not want anything to delay the passage of the Bill and its becoming an Act. We want to ensure that the children of Wales are properly protected as quickly as possible.
  We are all aware that a general election may be only a few weeks away.
  Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Öpik rose—
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) were to sit on the Government Benches where he belongs under the Lib-Lab pact, I might recognise him.
  232
  We want to ensure that a general election will not hamper the Bill, and that it is on the statute book as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has made a remarkable statement Does he want us to vote against his reasoned amendment if he puts it to a vote?
  Mr. Evans: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will vote exactly as the Government Whips dictate, and that the Bill will go into Committee quickly. Am Ito believe that the hon. Gentleman does not think that improvements can be made to the Bill following the recommendations of the charities that have probably written to him to raise the same issues as they have raised with me? In Committee, we will try to improve the Bill to ensure that the children of Wales get the proper care and welfare that they deserve.
  Mr. Michael: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that, given the wording of his reasoned amendment, if he and his colleagues voted for it and they were in the majority, the Bill would die? That is what he has drafted and put to the House.
  Mr. Evans: The funny thing is that the former Secretary of State for Wales should know from his time in opposition that devices are used to put down markers to show that the Opposition want the legislation to be improved in Committee. Given the Government's majority and the compliant people on the Labour Benches who are prepared to do the bidding of their masters at Millbank, I would be amazed if the amendment had any chance of succeeding.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: We should move on; I want to make some progress.
  The backdrop to the Bill is well known. Successive Governments have introduced legislation to protect the welfare of children. When we were in power, we introduced the Children Act 1989. In 1989, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child came into being. It was ratified by a Conservative Government in 1991 and came into force in 1992. The convention holds that children are born with fundamental freedoms and the inherent rights of all human beings.
  What we are doing is important not just for the children of Wales, but for the 2 billion children throughout the world. A number of Governments and countries will be watching what we are doing in this country. We have done that ourselves by seeing how an ombudsman or a commissioner operates in other countries. Emerging democracies will look at what we are doing and recognise that it is a mark of a civilised society to have sufficient and proper legislation to protect youngsters who do not have a voice in those systems of democracy. They will see what we do to ensure that the convention's provisions are implemented. It provides for a child's right to survival, health and education, a caring family environment, play and culture, protection from exploitation and abuse and to have his or her voice heard and his or her opinions taken into account on significant issues.

  233
  What we do today is important for children around the world. We are not the first Government to introduce children's welfare measures and we must work hard to ensure that we are not the last. Other countries, such as Australia, Germany, Canada, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand, have a Children's Commissioner, or a version of as post. This country acted last year by introducing the Care Standards Act 2000. The establishment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the children's rights director for England will build on that.
  Those provisions followed campaigns by children's organisations and charities, and I pay tribute to their work in pushing the agenda forward. They include Save the Children—Achub y Plant, in Welsh—the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Cymru, Barnados Cymru, the Children's Society in Wales and representatives of professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Welsh branch of the Local Government Association and even the Welsh Affairs Committee.
  William Utting, in his 1997 report "Taking Children Seriously", stated:
  We lack an independent office mandated to protect the interests of children in general on all matters of public policy and administration that affect their lives. Children need a strong independent national office to represent their interests comprehensively.
  Indeed, in July 1998, the Health Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred, called for the establishment of the post of Children's Commissioner.
  The Waterhouse report was a major catalyst for change. It investigated the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974 and was published on 15 February 2000. The inquiry was established by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State for Wales. I know that the House was grateful for his decision to do so, and I welcome the Secretary of State's earlier comments and what he said when the report was published.
  The report was harrowing. Some 264 witnesses gave oral evidence and 311 written evidences were received. In his conclusion, Sir Ronald recommended the establishment of an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales, with specific powers on children's rights, the monitoring and oversight of the operation of complaints, whistleblowing and arrangements for children's Advocacy. He also recommended that an annual report should be made to the National Assembly for Wales. I was delighted when the Secretary of State announced on 2 March—the day after St. David's day—that there would be an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales.
  Provisions were made in the Care Standards Act. However, the powers were limited and I accept that the changes that we now want were not within the Bill's scope. The Under-Secretary of State promised that the Government would produce more comprehensive proposals, and we will be debating the general thrust of those.
  The Bill has a most appalling backdrop. There was the recent murder of Damilola Taylor. A headline in The Independent on Monday 8 January this year was most harrowing. It read: "Serial abuse inquiries 'will top 100'". Nearly 100 inquiries into child abuse are taking place in England and Wales—and that is happening in 2001.
  234
  There was also the tragic death of Anna Climbie, who was murdered by her aunt and her aunt's boy friend. Following that, the Secretary of State said:
  This little girl was murdered by people who were supposed to be caring for her, but she was let down by the system that was supposed to be protecting her.
  He was absolutely right, as I am sure the House agrees. I welcome the speed with which the inquiry into that numbing murder is taking place. We have heard many reports about overworked social workers, her case being closed prematurely and agencies failing to detect abuse, but they must all be thoroughly and quickly investigated. We owe that to the memory of Anna.
  It is an appalling prospect that any other child could go through what Anna Climbie went through. The fact that an eight-year-old child could be systematically abused and neglected and left lying in a freezing bath to die of hypothermia defies our comprehension. It is little wonder that children's charities have now called for a comprehensive review of child protection procedures throughout the whole United Kingdom. The NSPCC has called for an independent child commissioner to act as a children's watchdog. If ever there was a time to act swiftly, that time is now.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out to the Prime Minister on 16 February 2000 that a children's rights director—as the post is now called in England—is not the same as the Children's Commissioner. The shadow Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), said during the passage of the Care Standards Bill:
  The Government are committed to providing a children's rights director only for looked-after children. We believe that the provision should go further. Almost all children's charities and professionals support the idea of a children's commissioner. The model that I suggest would allow protection and advocacy without interfering in the rights of parents.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 496.]
  During the Committee stage of that Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said:
  we have also tabled an amendment that would delete the role of children's rights director and establish separate English and Welsh children's commissioners on an equivalent basis.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 4 July 2000; c. 663.]
  Here is the challenge for the Government: let us not delay a day longer. As I shall argue shortly and as the National Assembly for Wales and many children's charities in Wales have argued, the Bill does not go far enough in its provisions for the functions and powers of the Children's Commissioner. Just as events made the Care Standards Bill deficient, so the events of recent months make this Bill deficient in several key regards.
  While we have a Children Commissioner for Wales with one set of powers and a children's rights director with lesser powers who will be working fully in 15 months—there seems to have been a delay—there will be confusion and inequality of treatment, and concern for our children will arise. Children are children whether they live in England or Wales, and devolution should not be a barrier to giving all our children full protection and rights. It should be seen as an opportunity and there can be no mealy-mouthed excuses for not acting quickly.
  I know that several Labour Members feel exactly the same as I do. We want parity and a children's commissioner with equivalent powers to be established in

  235
  England as quickly as possible. Those Labour Members may feel awkward about the present position because children from Wales will, for all sorts of reasons, he stationed or placed in England for a period of time. Does that mean that they do not deserve the same protection as they would receive in Wales? Children from England who come to Wales will receive extra protection from an enhanced version of the Children's Commissioner.

  There is no excuse for such differences to exist. I know that the Secretary of State said that the proposal is the result of the special needs that exist in Wales. However, of the 100 investigations into child abuse that are taking place in England and Wales, the vast majority—as one would expect—are being conducted in England. That is where the vast majority of children live. We must consider the issue with all seriousness, because there is no justification for not establishing a children's commissioner for England with equivalent powers to the Children's Commissioner for Wales so that all our children are properly protected.
  The Government may claim that they do not have the parliamentary time in the next few weeks to do something about this issue, but now is the time to act. Tomorrow, we shall debate a Bill that many people believe will protect foxes. I know that emotions run high on both sides of that debate, but it will seem strange to the nation considering our proceedings that we have time to protect foxes, but not the time to protect children in England. I ask the Government to reconsider and to find time to establish a children's commissioner for England so that children in England and Wales are properly looked after.
  In response to the Select Committee on Health in December 1998, the Government stated that they were not minded to create a children's commissioner post in England "in present circumstances". That was in 1998, and I suggest that circumstances have now changed. The Government ought to reconsider the matter.
  Non-devolved issues include penal services and youth custody, which the Secretary of State has mentioned. These matters are not covered by the Welsh Assembly, but if an over-arching Children's Commissioner is to be able to deal with all aspects of care for our children, is it not absurd to use the reason that home affairs are not devolved as a bureaucratic barrier to prevent the commissioner from having responsibility for them? That is ridiculous. We must consider carefully in Committee whether the Children's Commissioner would feel uncomfortable—or, indeed, be debarred from—dealing with penal and home affairs matters.
  A number of other matters, such as the Inland Revenue and social security, would also fall into the category of non-devolved matters. Children's charities have asked that they should all be examined, and the Government must come up with good reasons for the commissioner being debarred from entering any bodies that hold sway over our children.
  The Bill contains an ability for the commissioner to be consulted and to monitor policy as it affects children, but that ability is contained within the straitjacket of the Welsh Assembly. All primary legislation that affects Wales is made here at Westminster. Surely the Children's Commissioner should have some input into primary legislation that will affect the children of Wales—either
  236
  into Green Papers, White Papers or the Bills themselves. Why should we handcuff or straitjacket the Children's Commissioner into dealing only with secondary legislation affecting Wales? Let us reconsider the Commissioner's powers in relation to primary legislation. If the Government are proposing that the commissioner will be denied a consultative role in any legislation that could impinge on children, simply because it does not originate in the Welsh Assembly, we shall press that issue in Committee.
  Concerns have been expressed by children's charities in relation to the requirement to publish an annual report. We accept that, if the commissioner's powers are extended outside the Welsh Assembly, an annual report might also have to come to this Parliament. There would be nothing wrong with that. I am sure that when the Children's Commissioner publishes his report to the National Assembly for Wales, we shall all eagerly obtain copies and read it avidly. We shall want to ensure that the powers of the commissioner will be appropriate to what he wants to do, when he and his office are up and running.
  Other concerns are that the commissioner should be able to enter any institutions that contain children, examine the failure of any bodies to exercise their functions and comment on the decisions of courts and tribunals. All those points have been raised by children's charities, and I hope that we can use the Standing Committee to good effect in answering them. Obviously, one would not expect the commissioner to participate in or comment on a court case while it was still going on. However, after the judgment had been made, there should be an appropriate m3chanism whereby the commissioner could comment on cases in which children were involved.
  The House welcomes the appointment of Peter Clarke as the new Children's Commissioner for Wales. He will have a lot of work on his plate, unfortunately, and we wish him well. He has a very good pedigree in Childline Cymru. I ask him and the House to consider one aspect of the provision. He is to be called the Children's Commissioner, but the last thing that many youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17 want to be called is children. They would be insulted if one thought of them in those terms, for all kinds of reasons. If we were to call him the children's and youth commissioner, teenagers might feel more included in his work, which would be useful.
  I hope that the commissioner will consult us about his powers, and if he feels that we need to reconsider any of them, we should be able to do so. He must be able to act clearly and decisively to protect the rights and welfare of our children. Parents and society must be able to see him performing his tasks without muddied lines. There must be no demarcation problems in relation to the commissioner's role in schools or in institutions that provide services to schools. That must be properly defined, so that people know where responsibility lies.
  We want to ensure that the commissioner's role is widely publicised. Wherever young people go, they must know that they have a champion who will fight for their welfare and rights That publicity must be aimed at children in the first place but also, because of their role as whistleblowers, at adults. We must ensure that information about the relevant contact numbers and the commissioner's powers are widely available. In that way,

  237
  we will have the security of knowing that the commissioner will be the champion even of children who know nothing about him.
  The best security for children is a secure, stable and loving family, supported fully by the Government and unhindered by political correctness or misguided priorities. Our youngsters should have a good education, without the fear of bullying. Sadly, today's edition of The Guardian carries another survey showing that a great many children suffer bullying in school. Children need protection from that.
  Another aspect of good education is that children must not fear that village schools will be closed. Hon. Members of all parties want schools in and near villages to be protected. Children must also know that teacher numbers are sufficient, and that they will not be deprived of schooling. That happens all too often these days. What children need is a good education, a good education, a good education.
  We want the Bill to be comprehensive and to afford proper protection to all our children. We want it on the statute book as quickly as possible. I guarantee that Conservative Members will work with diligence to ensure that there is no delay, and I have already spoken to the Government Whip to that end. There must be no excuses.
  We want to strengthen the Bill where necessary, although that does not mean that we will not table amendments. Where appropriate, we want the powers of the commissioner to be extended. However, we must act without delay—our children deserve no less.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Government Front-Bench colleagues deserve praise for introducing this Bill so quickly, as does the National Assembly for Wales, which co-operated so well with other arms of Government in the United Kingdom to make the Bill a reality. In addition, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) noted at least tangentially, the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group has provided some thoughtful briefings about how the Bill could be improved.
  I remain at a loss to understand why the Opposition have tabled an amendment that would decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. It does not have the slightest chance of succeeding, but if it were to be passed it would prevent all the good things that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley wants to happen from occurring. However, given the source of the amendment, we should not be surprised at that contradiction.
  To be fair, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley put the debate in the context of the recent and terrible inquiry into the death of Anna Climbie. We must recognise that the phenomenon is not new: perhaps the first really major outcry about the abominable treatment and death of a child arose in connection with Marta Colwell in 1973. Similar incidents have occurred consistently over the years, and in that context we could mention Tyra Henry, Jasmine Beckford, Kimberly Carlile and Doreen Mason. Unfortunately, many children have met deaths after suffering and torment so terrible that it is beyond ordinary human beings to understand it.
  We have heard mention of the fact that about 100 investigations into child abuse are taking place in the United Kingdom now. We need only look at statistical
  238
  information available in Wales on the number of children on the child protection register to see that child abuse is increasing. Between 1990 and 2000, the figure increased by 5 per cent., from 2,302 to 2,416. Within the figure for 2000 there was a 50 per cent. increase in neglect and emotional abuse; and of the almost 2,500 children who were on the register, more than a third were there as a result of physical abuse.
  It is interesting, too, to look at the figures to see how the range can change. In the Vale of Glamorgan, in 1997, only—I say "only" to emphasise the change—37 children in 10,000 were named on the register, but by 2000 that figure had increased to 61. In Wrexham, the low figure of 11 on the register in 1997 had increased to 22 in 2000. The figure for Wales increased from 30 under-18s in every 10,000 in 1997 to 40 in 2000.
  However, in Caerphilly the figure has gone up and down. From 39 in every 10,000 in 1997, it jumped to 64 in every 10,000 in 1998 and 62 in 1999, and then went back down to 35 in 2000. We might want to explore and consider the reasons for those fluctuations.
  Between 1992 and 1998 in Wales, figures were kept by age groups—under fives, one to four, five to nine, 10 to 15 and 16 to 17. In every age group except for the last, the amount of abuse increased during that period.
  We must be keenly aware of the fact that we are considering the Bill at a time when problems of abuse have got worse, despite the fact that there have been all these inquiries, and that we now have a well-established system of child abuse conferences, registers and procedures. We have the Children Act 1989, which gave child protection agencies extra powers, and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which came into force in 1992, although with some reservations. We have a battery of laws. We are awash with recommendations from numerous inquiries—more than 20 in the past few years. Reams of guidance have been issued, and yet we must face the fact that terrible abuse still goes on.
  We should focus not so much on that abuse, but on what it is about our society that causes such things to happen. There is something about children with which, in our adult world, we have not yet come to terms. That is why it is vital to have a commissioner. We need someone who can step back and take a view that is independent from those of the agencies that are charged with ensuring that children are brought up in a healthy environment. There are so many of them—the social services, the police, the hospitals and the national health service—and yet, for some reason, the system is failing, so it is very important indeed to have the Children's Commissioner.
  Of course it is not a new or unique idea to appoint such a commissioner. About a dozen countries have had commissioners—some for quite a few years—and they have operated successfully. We should take heart from examples in countries such as Norway, Denmark and New Zealand, to name but a few.
  In the United Kingdom, I suppose that it was the 1991 report, which was sponsored by the Gulbenkian Foundation and written by Peter Newell—at least, he was in charge of the process—entitled "Taking Children Seriously" that proposed a children's rights commissioner. The latest edition, which was published last year, has the support of more than 100 organisations that either represent or have

  239
  dealings with children. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley quoted Sir William Utting's foreword, which noted the important of such an independent commissioner.
  In 1998, the Select Committee on Health made some important recommendations about having a children's commissioner who would have responsibilities in England. By that time, it was already known in Wales that we wanted to spearhead the appointment of such a person. When Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report came out last February, he made it clear in his first two recommendations that we should have such a commissioner in Wales. In the meantime, the Welsh Office had published its own White Paper, entitled "Building for the Future", which was about the provision of social services. In that document there was a commitment to consider the introduction of the Children's Commissioner.
  We have a well-trodden background to the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, it will not be creating a Children's Commissioner—we have one already. It is seeking to build on powers in the context of the Bill that we considered last year. The Bill before us is seeking to extend positively the commissioner's powers to enable Mr. Peter Clarke to create an office—we congratulate him and wish him well—to ensure that in Wales we shall have a system and a person to give children confidence that they will be able to make their representations if all else has failed. They will know that if they make representations, there will be recorded comment for the Government to take up, whether it be at Assembly level or United Kingdom level. Children can be confident that they will be taken seriously.
  The Assembly and the Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt, made it plain in July the year before last and in May last year that the Assembly was giving importance and priority to the extension of the commissioner's powers to enable him or her to play a more positive role in Welsh life for Welsh children. The Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly, chaired by Kirsty Williams, conducted a thorough investigation and compiled a report that contained a series of recommendations. Not all of them are featured in the Bill because there still remain difficulties in some instances about the way in which the role of the commissioner can be approached in statutory terms. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the commissioner will still be able to pursue quite a broad remit and to make recommendations not only at Assembly level but to the United Kingdom Government and Departments for them to consider where they have responsibilities in Wales.
  We have a Bill that extends the commissioner's role. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already gone into some detail about that and I do not feel that I need to go over all of the issues. However, it is worth considering some of the concerns of the voluntary sector in Wales, some of which have also been voiced by the Assembly, about how the commission might operate under the powers set out in the Bill. It is right that we should raise issues about non-devolved matters and cross-border services. It was good to hear my right hon. Friend saying that the commissioner would be able to make comments and recommendations on such issues.
  240
  It is interesting to know that there are about 220 Welsh teenagers under the care of the youth justice system or in young offenders' institutions in England. There is about the same number in custody in my constituency at Parc prison. Often these children will come out of care and be a part of the commissioner's direct remit. The fact that they are moved into custody should not preclude the commissioner from being able to make recommendations and give consideration to how those young people found themselves in custody. What were the failings of the system, which is now delivered through the Assembly, in the first place?
  We must recognise that the statutory duty will still lie with the Home Office, for example, but it is good to be able to raise the issue in this debate, so we can place on record exactly how the commissioner will be able to operate.
  Mr. Walter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of young people in custody. I wonder whether he has any more idea than I have about the position of those in custody in his constituency. As I understand it from the Secretary of State, the commissioner would be able to express an opinion about them, despite having no statutory power. The commissioner would not have that power in respect of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who might be in custody in England. Would that be the hon. Gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. Griffiths: I do not think it appropriate to go into that sort of detail on Second Reading. It is fair to raise it as an issue to be considered. We can probe in Committee to ascertain exactly how the system will work.
  Mr. Michael: Is it not precisely the nature of the devolution settlement that there are some responsibilities and some locations which are relevant to Wales but outside the Welsh border, and others that are entirely within Wales? Devolution entails a partnership between the United Kingdom Government and other bodies. Given what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said earlier, the power of the commissioner to make comment where appropriate in the interests of children in Wales will help and strengthen the process of devolution as well as promote the interests of children.
  Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is right. It will be incumbent on whoever are the members of the Committee that will consider the Bill to tease out some of these issues in more detail. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that there would be a broader horizon for the commissioner to view, even though in some instances there will not be specific statutory duties for him or her. We can be in no doubt that the commissioner will be able to comment on various issues.
  There is a slightly trickier area. The Bill allows the commissioner to take up the cases of young children who are the responsibility of bodies or agencies in Wales. The placement of children will be supported through direct or indirect funding, which can be provided through local authorities. However, there could be questions about the placement by Welsh local authorities of children in English foster homes, special schools and specialist hospitals. As such children are ordinarily resident in Wales, payment for their care and treatment will come

  241
  from the Welsh purse. It is interesting to reflect on how the commissioner will work in that respect—a matter that should be considered further in Committee.
  The issue of dialogue with children also requires further consideration. Should it be dealt with explicitly in the Bill, or can we take it from the tenor of the debate and of the provisions that it will occur automatically? Will the commissioner automatically have regard to dialogue, to promoting and respecting the views of children and to having direct contact with them? As the United Kingdom Government have ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, should the Bill contain specific duties for the commissioner to ensure compliance with the convention by the Welsh Assembly and appropriate bodies and persons in Wales? Should promotion of the convention be a specific part of the commissioner's job, or is there no need for anything else to be done because it has been ratified, is dealt with in other legislation and is automatically a part of the set up?
  More serious consideration should be given to issues relating to the commissioner's ability to enter institutions where young people are cared for and to make comments after court cases and tribunals have occurred. I understood from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that a more liberal approach would indeed apply to those abilities. I further understood that the fears expressed about these issues are not as real as they appear when one first reads the provisions in black and white. Perhaps we can read between the lines and take assurance from his opening remarks on the commissioner's role. Peter Newell is a great expert in these matters and feels that more specific provision should be included in the Bill. I hope that the Standing Committee, on which I hope to serve, will have the opportunity to examine those issues further.
  We must avoid the assumption that the creation of a Children's Commissioner is a panacea that will automatically make things better. Although the arrangements have the potential to make things better, the commissioner will still have to work carefully with Welsh bodies, persons and institutions with responsibilities for children. Furthermore, bodies such as social services departments will have to review their recruitment procedures. The training of social workers must be reconsidered, as well as the effectiveness of information gathering and transmission within and between organisations such as the police and the health service. More must also be done in schools.
  The Opposition's reasoned amendment—they claimed that they did not want it to be a wrecking amendment—relates to important family issues. For some four years, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Welsh Joint Education Committee have been trying to promote in schools what started as education for parenthood, but has now been revamped into family life education. It is important for us to bring to youngsters an awareness of family issues and of the strains and stresses that can arise in families, in order to prepare them for family life and parenthood.
  One of the issues raised in Sir William Utting's report was the need for a compulsory register of private foster care—an issue that is relevant to the recent tragic death of Anna Climbie. I do not know whether the recommendation for such a register can be weaved into the Bill. It was not accepted when it was made, but perhaps the time has now come for us to reconsider it.
  242
  I hope that we will now act with the alacrity demonstrated by everybody who has so far been involved in the proposals, get the Bill into Committee, examine it thoroughly and use the expertise that has already been gathered. It would be great to see it through the House before the first anniversary of the publication of the Waterhouse report, which did so much to prompt us to take action.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I am happy to speak for the Liberal Democrats on the Bill. We warmly welcome the measure and believe that it cannot come soon enough for the needs of the children of Wales.
  There is no doubt that when the elections to the Welsh Assembly were held, a desire stretched almost completely across the political divide to establish a Children's Commissioner for Wales. However, for some reason, the 1999 Welsh Conservative manifesto, "Fair Play for All", made no mention of such a proposal. It might have been suggested that the reasoned amendment was consistent with that approach, but the tone of the speech made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was almost exactly the opposite of that of the amendment.
  Mr. Llwyd: Today is a ground-breaking day, in terms not only of the Bill but of the Tory Front Bench performance. I hope that when "Erskine May" is updated, it will reflect that the best way of wholeheartedly supporting a Bill is to table a reasoned amendment.
  Mr. Livsey: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments; his perception is correct. It was good to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley in support of the establishment of a Children's Commissioner. Although the Welsh Conservative party's 1999 manifesto did not mention the proposal, it is clear that Conservative Assembly Members' support for the establishment of such a commissioner might have had a subtle influence on his speech.
  The other three parties all proposed the establishment of a commissioner for Wales. The Welsh Liberal Democrat manifesto, which promised "guaranteed delivery", proposed the appointment of a commissioner with powers to investigate local handling of any complaint made by a child about a public or voluntary service. That is important because it must be backed up with statutory force. We are fortunate because, as the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has already stated, Kirsty Williams, who is a member of our party, chairs the Health and Social Services Committee in the Assembly. She and all members of the Committee strongly advocated establishing a Children's Commissioner for Wales.
  The Health and Social Services Committee has taken evidence on the creation of the Children's Commissioner from a wide range of organisations, including the NSPCC, Barnardos, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Welsh Local Government Association. The Committee also noted the opportunity to establish a statutory independent commissioner under the Care Standards Bill, which has subsequently been enacted.
  The creation of a Children's Commissioner for Wales is an important matter, especially in view of the Waterhouse report on child abuse in north Wales. Sir Ronald Waterhouse's findings made the creation of an independent

  243
  Children's Commissioner for Wales imperative. Surely real power means statutory powers to protect children and their rights. The organisations that the Assembly consulted support that and the extension of the powers that are established in the Care Standards Act 2000.
  The question that remains is the extent to which we extend the Children's Commissioner's powers. The Health and Social Services Committee and the Pre-16, Schools and Early Learning Committee in the Assembly concluded in a joint meeting on 22 March 2000 that the Children's Commissioner should promote children's rights, raise the profile of children's issues and take an overview of the impact of policies and procedures across all children's services.
  The joint meeting also made the point that a Children's Commissioner should represent the views of children and young people up to the age of 18, with exceptions for older young people. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that "young people" should be added to the commissioner's title provides food for thought. Young people older than 15 are sensitive about being described as children, yet many young people experience great problems.
  One of the joint meeting's most important proposals was effective advocacy systems for children and young people. All the points that I have made so far are covered in the Bill, although not all the Health and Social Services Committee's proposals have been included. However, amendments could be tabled in Committee to ascertain whether we can improve the advocacy systems for which the measure provides.
  Formal investigations of circumstances in which children's rights have been breached are especially important. The power to disclose information about various circumstances that affect children is vital. Liberal Democrat Members are pleased that many of the ideas that I have described have been taken on board.
  An amendment tabled in the Assembly states:
  the Assembly affirms its beliefs that the Children's Commissioner for Wales should have statutory powers across all areas affecting all children in Wales, and that his or her powers should include:

  Power to require inquiries

  Powers to order disclosure of information

  Powers to require action to be taken by public authorities and bodies, in accordance with their own duties.

  It is interesting to note that the amendment was passed unanimously by all four parties in the Assembly.
  The official Opposition's reasoned amendment, which appears to express dissatisfaction with the Bill, does not match the views of Conservative Assembly Members or—in the light of his speech—those of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. The reasoned amendment states that the Bill
  fails to give families confidence that the Children's Commissioner will protect the interests of their children whilst not impinging on the rights and responsibilities of parents …
  We must take a balanced view, but the reasoned amendment implies that no abuse occurs in families. That does not reflect reality. We know from investigations and the work of social services departments that there are no barriers to abuse, which sadly occurs across a wide spectrum of society.
  Mr. Walter: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken and reads into the amendment something that is not there.
  244
  Does not he concur that, in bringing up children, parents' rights are important? Although no Conservative Member claims that child abuse does not occur in the family, the reasoned amendment suggests that the rights of parents should not be subservient to those of the commissioner. The amendment seeks to improve, not limit, the Bill.
  Mr. Livsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. However, we must also ensure that families do not have the right to abuse children. It is a fine line, and the implication that perhaps abuse in families never occurs is wrong; sadly, such abuse sometimes happens. We must achieve a balance, and I am glad that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has made his point.
  The NSPCC and Children in Wales are worried about some omissions from the Bill, especially the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. We agree that it should be incorporated. We also agree with comments on non-devolved matters and cross-border services. For example, children from Wales can be in the custody of English local authorities. That happens in our part of the world, when children are often are fostered out to Herefordshire and Shropshire.
  Some matters relate to the Home Office, especially aspects of court and tribunal decisions. Many of us are worried about young people who are in prison in England, and very far from home. I hope that the Children's Commissioner for Wales will work to establish the right of children from Wales to be in custody near their homes. Parents find it difficult to travel to visit their children who are in trouble and in custody far away. Young people experience much heartache when they are disconnected from Wales, not only physically but culturally. That matter should be addressed and investigated further.
  We welcome the appointment of the Children's Commissioner, Peter Clarke, and wish him well. He has a tough job to do, but we know from his record with Childline that he is well able to do it. We also welcome the Bill, and will do all we can to give it a fair wind while also trying to improve it. There is every reason why it should be put on the fast track, as has been demonstrated by many speeches that we have heard this evening.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am delighted to be able to speak in this historic debate. For the first time since devolution, we in the House of Commons are providing the primary legislative framework for a policy made in Wales and for Wales. This example shows that the Welsh model of executive devolution can work when there is good will on both sides of the Severn.
  I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate for another reason. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I used to be responsible for children in Wales; my responsibility in the Welsh Office immediately preceded the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. I well remember my first briefing, in which some of the less than glorious history of child care in Wales and the responsibilities and failures of the Welsh Office were explained.
  I am proud of the fact that during my time in the Welsh Office we published a White Paper on social services for Wales, entitled "Building for the Future", which proposed the option of an independent commissioner for children

  245
  in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has row developed those proposals, and, by giving such priority to the Bill, has shown that children's needs are—as they should be—a matter of great concern.
  I warn my colleagues in Wales that they should not see the role of the Children's Commissioner as solving all the problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend pointed out, it is not a panacea that will meet all the needs of children. Although the commissioner will certainly help by acting as an advocate and a watchdog, he will not replace the requirement for all of us to be vigilant in preventing the abuse and neglect that sadly affect too many of our children.
  Two recent constituency examples show that it is far too early for us to congratulate ourselves on having learned from past mistakes. As is often the case, the family histories of the children involved are very difficult. I shall not name them, but I think that their experiences will be familiar to members of all parties, because, sadly, they are not rare.
  The first case is that of a boy of nine who, for good reasons, was excluded from school in November. He was seen by an educational psychologist during his first year at school and was assessed again during his second year, but he was not "statemented" until his fourth year. He has since been diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and has been prescribed medication. The local authority says that it has no available special-school place for the boy, but has offered one hour a day of home tuition. Since his expulsion in November, however, the child has been given just seven hours—one day—of tuition. His mother is distraught. She needs help and her son needs help, but they are not receiving it.
  The second case involves an even younger child—a toddler, or baby, aged two. Her mother voluntarily placed her in care some 18 months ago. The child has since been placed in five foster homes, and no decision has been made about her long-term future. Will she be reunited with her mother, will she be adopted, or will she continue to be passed from pillar to post?
  What is so poignant about that case is that the mother, who is not yet 20, was herself in care, and was placed with 10 different foster parents. Her two-year-old daughter is already halfway to meeting the record that she set. It would indeed be a tragedy if today's care system failed the daughter, as the earlier one failed the mother.
  I welcome the appointment of the Children's Commissioner, but let us not leave the House this evening with the self-satisfied view that we have done what needs to be done by allowing the Bill a Second Reading. A great deal remains to be done. The Children's Commissioner will aid the process, but his appointment is not the only means by which we must try to help children. I believe that a great deal of current legislation—especially, perhaps, "best value" legislation—gives us scope to ensure that far more is done, effectively and efficiently, in social services and education departments.
  Whatever the systems and processes that we enact, however, all of us—as legislators in particular, but also as responsible adults—have a duty to care for children, to be vigilant and to speak up on behalf of children. I hope and believe that the Children's Commissioner will be the greatest advocate for children in Wales, but he or she will not remove the responsibility borne by everyone else.
  6.28 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: Several years ago, the Utting inquiry revealed an appalling history of abuse in children's homes in north Wales; but more shaming, in many respects, were the disbelief and the brick walls faced by children when they tried to speak up, and also by adults in the system when they sought to voice their suspicions. It took many years for the truth to come out. I fear that, because such a long time had elapsed and because the evidence was so old—and, as it would after all those years, relied so heavily on unsupported allegations—some guilty people have escaped and, even worse, some innocent people have been unjustly pilloried and possibly even convicted.
  Certainly, abuses have been committed elsewhere in the United Kingdom and have not come to light because children encountered similar impediments to seeking help or simply being heard. The recent harrowing case of Anna Climbie, which has been mentioned several times today, is an extreme and particularly sadistic example.
  It was right to devise a mechanism to check and test the systems of oversight for "looked after" children, and to try to give them a voice—or at least to turn a sensitive listening ear towards them. Legislation passed last year establishing a children's director in England and a commissioner in Wales was an important advance for "looked after" children, although, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) pointed out, it is not a panacea. It does not absolve anyone—legislators or citizens—from taking great care.
  The Bill breaks new ground. It is, as we have heard, the first legislation promoted by the Welsh Assembly, and it extends the commissioner's remit to services supplied by the Assembly in Wales or substantially paid for from its budget. I should have preferred the commissioner and his staff to take up their original duties sooner, and to wait until they had gained some experience before extending their range. I hope that the commissioner will still regard "looked after" children as the most vulnerable and, therefore, as his immediate central concern. I hope that he will turn his attention to other matters only when he is confident that he has attended properly to those children and their institutional environment.
  It makes sense for the commissioner eventually to extend his remit—perhaps, as the Bill does, in time, to all services involving children for which the Assembly is responsible or which it largely funds. However, I hope that the commissioner will use his judgment and find that he does not need to spend too much time on most of those services.
  National Museums and Galleries of Wales, for example, caters for children, and in organising itself it should have in mind their interests and opinions. It should also balance the needs and interests of children with those of adults when they differ. If it is run by the right people, the commissioner really should not have to give it too much attention—although I am sure that that body would be grateful if the commissioner were occasionally to suggest ways in which it might better serve child visitors.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made various searching points at the Dispatch Box earlier in the debate, and he was quite right to do so. However, I think that most of the points could and should be dealt with by amendments in Committee, rather than by rejecting the Bill. I was very glad to hear him say

  247
  words to similar effect. I therefore hope that, at the end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) will say that he sees no reason why the Opposition should press their reasoned amendment.
  Nevertheless, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley was right to suggest that the Bill might be improved if it made it clear that the commissioner should work with parents, who will often be the ones who make complaints on behalf of their children. The welfare of children does indeed depend fundamentally on strong family units. However, regardless of whether such a statement is in the Bill, any half-decent commissioner—and I am sure that Mr. Clarke will prove to be a decent one—will know that, and will wish to operate as an ally and supporter of good and concerned parents, rather than substituting his judgment and authority for theirs.
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley was right also to be concerned that there could be duplication and confusion. However, that too will depend largely on the way in which the commissioner decides to operate. There is confusion enough in most public organisations about who exactly is in charge and how complaints can be effectively made, especially when children are concerned. I believe that if the commissioner enables the voice of children and their parents to be better heard and the shortcomings of which they complain to receive effective attention, the new system will clarify where responsibility and the power to remedy complaints really lie.
  The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) quite rightly expressed his concern about the possibility that the commissioner will not be able to attend to the situation of Welsh juveniles in young offenders' institutions especially if they are incarcerated across the border, in England. May I suggest that the commissioner could approach that situation by speaking up and indicating the potential problem, and then talking to HM chief inspector of prisons—who, I am quite sure, would undertake any investigation on his behalf that he thought necessary? It has been remarked in the debate also that devolution is an opportunity for authorities on both sides of the border to work together. I think that attending to that situation is one such opportunity, and that such co-operation is one way of dealing with the worry that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly had.
  I take it that the commissioner is responsible for his own budgets, as well as for what he says. I hope that the Minister will confirm in his reply that the commissioner will be able to use his budgets, and that he has enough in them to be able to conduct formal research and inquiries at second hand. I think that the commissioner will find that he needs some academic input and has to take on board people from outside to make particular inquiries when sufficient information is not available for him to make a judgment or to put points to the public and to Members of the Assembly.
  I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that, although the commissioner will be formally responsible only for covering the services belonging to the Assembly, there is nothing to prevent him from speaking more widely when he judges it to be necessary. I hope that the Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but I took that to mean that the commissioner can comment, for example, on court cases and on legislation—not merely on
  248
  devolved legislation from the Assembly, but on legislation that may be passed in this place. Will the Minister confirm that, although the commissioner's formal powers of investigation may be limited, his power to speak out when he thinks it necessary to make a point is in no way inhibited?
  The commissioner has to make an annual report to the Assembly. I imagine that he is there to be summoned by the Assembly, to give evidence if the Assembly or one of its Committees so wishes. If he is, I hope that the Assembly and its Committees will make use of that.
  Undoubtedly, the Assembly and the Government regard the commissioner as a champion doing battle for children against bad or insensitive people and organisations outside. However, I suspect that if the commissioner does his job properly, as is often the way with inspectors, his revelations and criticisms will occasionally come uncomfortably close to home—as regards the way in which Departments of the Government or the Assembly have behaved and in respect of the services that they offer. I hope so; it will do them good.
  I wish the Bill very great success in its passage through Parliament, and look forward to England eventually learning from Welsh experience.
  6.38 pm
  Ms Julie Morgan: I am very proud to be able to speak in this debate. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said, the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill is the first legislation considered by the House that has been asked for by the National Assembly for Wales and that deals only with Wales. It demonstrates the true spirit of devolution. The National Assembly for Wales, the Government and Parliament are all working together to produce legislation to improve protection for children in Wales.
  I am very proud also that Wales is taking the lead on the issue. Devolution is all about finding the important issues for each part of the United Kingdom, and the Bill offers a shining example of what is important in Wales. All eyes will be on Wales to see how the commissioner deals with the varies challenges facing him. I am sure that he will provide an excellent example of what can be done. I know that he has the good wishes of all hon. Members.
  Although this is a welcome day, as other hon. Members have said, it is also a sad day on which we are bound to remember all the children who have suffered, who have been abused and who have needed the voice of a champion. As other hon. Members have also said, although such a champion might not have stopped the abuse, he or she would have greatly improved the chances of its being stopped. We are bound to remember the young people in north Wales who were involved in abuse, particularly the 11 young men who later committed suicide. Several hon. Members have mentioned the horrific recent case of Anna Climbie.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) reminded us that, in addition to the scandals involving institutions, abuse also takes place in families, and that although families are the best places to bring up children, they can also be dangerous. Nor should we forget that domestic violence harms and damages children.

  249
  Given the background to the Bill, I find the Conservative amendment quite extraordinary. It is certainly out of tune with public feeling and with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Something must have gone wrong with the Opposition's planning and they probably deeply regret tabling the amendment.
  Perhaps Conservative Members should consult their own party more widely. I was staggered by the dismissive way in which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly almost as if they were beneath contempt. It is no wonder the Conservative party is in such a mess, given what has happened today. To be absolutely fair, however, all that is in contrast with the speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. I believe that there is cross-party consensus and that Conservative Members have made a bit of a blunder by tabling their amendment. What they have said since shows that it was a bit of politicking that did not really come off. They should certainly consult their colleagues in the National Assembly more, and read what they have said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to David Melding, a Conservative Assembly Member, as saying that the Children's Commissioner would be a great friend and champion of good, wholesome family life.
  Mr. Walter: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. As we have pointed out on a number of occasions, we tabled our reasoned amendment to improve the Bill. She cannot claim that there is a great consistency between the views expressed by Labour Assembly Members and those of the Government. Article 29 of the report by the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee suggests that the commissioner should have a remit over non-devolved areas, and continues:
  However, we recognise that such a proposal would be subject to negotiation with the UK Government.
  It is quite clear that the First Secretary has been unable to negotiate that. Not only is there no unanimity of view between Labour Assembly Members and Labour Members here, such as the hon. Lady is suggesting does not exist among the Conservatives, but there is in fact a unanimity of view, in that we are all seeking to make the Bill more effective.
  Ms Morgan: There seems to be a direct contradiction between the views of Opposition Members and Assembly Members.
  Mr. Chris Ruane: I have here the PA NewsFile report on the relationship between Conservative Assembly Members and Conservative Members in Westminster. It says:
  Mr. Bourne recently insisted there was no division between Tory MPs and AMs over the Bill.
  But today he conceded: "I thought that was the case at the time before meeting some of our team at Westminster. They were fully aware of our position and there was no indication at first that there was any difference. When I said that, I was certainly not aware of any difference. Subsequently I found out that there was a difference of emphasis but we are not going to change our position. We are not going to stand on our heads for anybody."
  That is the position of Conservative Assembly Members in Cardiff.
  Ms Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
  250
  The amendment is also contradictory. On the one hand it says that the Bill
  fails to assert the importance of the family,
  yet on the other hand it does not go far enough, because it fails to take account of UK public bodies. It is clearly out of touch with the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members and the public—so today has not been the Conservative party's finest hour.
  It is vital that the Children's Commissioner becomes a true advocate of all children in Wales. We do not want the commissioner to be inhibited about what he talks about and in the issues that young people bring to his attention. If children are in desperate circumstances, wherever they are and whether or not they are covered by devolved or non-devolved legislation, and if they approach the Children's Commissioner, it is absolutely essential that he should respond, comment on their case and make sure that something is done about it.
  I was reassured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he said that the Children's Commissioner should be able to comment on any matters affecting children in Wales. When the Under-Secretary of State for Wales replies to the debate, I hope that he will reiterate that. It is a matter that has concerned children's charities in Wales. They have a long history of campaigning for this post and they are anxious that we should do the best that we possibly can. If my hon. Friend can confirm that, it will go a long way towards addressing their concerns.
  Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to those charities, particularly Children in Wales, which has worked extremely hard to establish this post. Children in Wales is a conglomerate of children's charities which have long held the belief that a Children's Commissioner who is outside the system will be a true advocate for children in Wales and will help to improve their lives. I held that view for many years when I worked in the voluntary sector, and it is extremely important that we take on board the points that have been raised by the charities; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reassured us about one of the main ones.
  I should also mention consultation with children. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that it was important to highlight that issue and discuss in Committee how it should be done. It will be a key issue for the commissioner. It is easy to say that we will consult children and young people, but it will take money, expertise and a great deal of working out to make certain that the views of representative children in Wales reach the commissioner and that he is able to gauge their views and concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said that it might be better to put that in the Bill; we could consider that in Committee.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I should like to mention how the commissioner was appointed, as it is something of which we should be proud. I am sure that it is a first for a public appointment, just as the Children's Commissioner for Wales is the first children's commissioner in the United Kingdom. Children were involved in the appointment in a unique way and for the first time in respect of a major public appointment in the United Kingdom. Seventeen children were involved in the process for a whole weekend; they interviewed all the shortlisted candidates and engaged in role play with the candidates. Two young people were voted by that group to be members of the final selection panel, which

  251
  also included political representatives and, I assume, an independent person—the first time such a major public appointment has been made in that way. That is a great tribute to the Assembly.
  Some of the young people were interviewed after that process and were extremely proud of what had been done; they, too, felt that it was a historic occasion and that they had really contributed to making the office of the commissioner happen. They felt that they had a stake in the matter.
  The Children's Commissioner will be effective only if he is known throughout the length and breadth of Wales, so that wherever there are children, they will know that the commissioner is the person to go to if they want something taken up, or if they have something to say and it has not been dealt with by more immediate channels. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the first point of access for many young people should not be the commissioner, but much more local bodies—probably the local authority or other channels. It is extremely important, however, that the name of the Children's Commissioner be known and that he himself be known throughout Wales, so that young people know whom to get in touch with. I hope that the commissioner will try to reach out to children imaginatively, to make certain that communication takes place.
  I attended a conference at which the Danish Children's Commissioner, or ombudsman, spoke. He involved all the children in the audience in exercises to bring out their views on many issues. That was a tremendously exciting and enjoyable occasion. Although, in discussing the commissioner's post, we have concentrated on abuse, because the post was created as a result of the Waterhouse report and its terrible saga, we should also think about all the hopes and expectations of young people; we in Wales want them to fulfil their potential as much as they can. The role of the commissioner should be just as much to do with that as with the sad findings in Waterhouse.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady has given a good and exciting description of how the commissioner could affect the lives of children in Wales. Does she agree that the commissioner needs the right infrastructure and staff to be able to undertake his job? For example, is she aware of the difficulties of the Disability Rights Commissioner? Two of my constituents were told that their problems could not be considered for six months because of the overwhelming number of people who have approached that commissioner. Surely, we must avoid that scenario for the Children's Commissioner. We must impress on everyone the need for the right finances to be available to him.
  Ms Morgan: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must ensure that resources are available. Although we refer to the commissioner, we are, of course, talking about the office of commissioner—the system involves more than one person. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that when the office of commissioner was set up under disability discrimination legislation, it was discovered that the vast majority of disabled people in Wales were unaware of the commissioners and of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and of how to use them. We need to ensure not only that the disability
  252
  commissioners are well advertised, but that the Children's Commissioner is known. The publication of the commissioner's resources is extremely important.
  Many of the points I had intended to make have been made by other hon. Members. Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify whether the commissioner would be able to comment on the results of legal cases? He certainly would not be able to do so before the end of such proceedings, but a major part of the commissioner's role should be to comment on important issues that may be discussed throughout Wales, even if they did not arise from Welsh cases—such as the Venables case or the recent case on the separation of Siamese twins.
  It is important that the commissioner should have the power to comment on such matters. There is some feeling among the children's charities that an amendment would be needed to establish that power. Will my hon. Friend reassure me about that point?
  The measure refers to children who are "ordinarily resident in Wales". Does that include the children of asylum seekers, for example? In Cardiff, we expect asylum seekers shortly; we want to ensure that they have as good a welcome and are as well integrated as possible. Will the children of asylum seekers come within the remit of the commissioner?
  It has been a great pleasure to speak in the debate. The measure is a big step forward. During my time as a Member over the past four years, it has been a great privilege to see devolution and the setting up of the National Assembly in Cardiff, and to see the introduction of the first Bill proposed to this House by the Assembly. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the points that I have made.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State, who opened the debate, is normally extremely fair and strives to express a reasoned view. He carefully went over the history of the commissioner and the various debates held in this place. Unfortunately, however, he omitted the fact that I was the first to raise the question in 1993, in a Committee of which he was a member. To be fair, both he and his hon. Friends supported my amendment and our discussions at that time, even though, unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted. I am referring to the Standing Committee on the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
  It seems that the Conservatives have now decided that the commissioner is a good thing—at least I think they have. There is, of course, their reasoned amendment, but we shall see—the acid test will come at 10 o'clock.
  Over the years, efforts have been made by many Members on both sides of the House. In 1993, there was support from the three Opposition parties; together, we did a considerable amount of work on the amendment. I received considerable assistance from Plant yng Nghymru—Children in Wales—to whom the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) referred earlier. Hon. Members will undoubtedly acknowledge the huge efforts made recently by Children in Wales to secure the establishment of the post of commissioner—initially, as an adjunct to the Care Standards Act 2000 and, more recently, to propose that the office and its remit be extended and that the whole issue be moved up the political agenda. Such is the success of Children in Wales

  253
  that we are discussing the matter toddy. The organisation has worked hard lobbying Members of both the National Assembly and this place.
  I unreservedly congratulate Children in Wales and thank its members and all its constituent bodies for all their hard work on behalf of our Welsh citizens of the future. I also congratulate Mr. Gareth Wardell on his appointment as chair of the organisation and wish him well in that office. He was an assiduous Member of this place—a highly regarded man and an excellent Chair of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. He is an excellent choice to chair Children in Wales.
  The amendment to which I referred would have imposed certain duties on the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I shall refer to it only briefly, because there is a feeling of deja vu about it now. We were talking then about the new local government set-up in Wales, and the main thrust of the amendment was that the commissioner should have regard to the principles laid down in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which has already been mentioned in the debate.
  Secondly, there was a need to ensure co-ordination between voluntary organisations providing services for children and the principal councils. Another important factor was the need to consult children, and those who seek to promote children's interests, from time to time. That was the main thrust of the amendment discussed at that time, but although it had support it was not carried.
  It is as true today as it was then that children are a special case. They need advocates, and the appointment of a commissioner then would have given them one. Now we shall have an advocate in place for children, who deserve special treatment—and as a Welsh person, I am proud that Wales is showing the way.
  The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) made a measured and excellent speech—one of warm and constructive support for the Bill, which made a useful contribution to the debate. He too said that children need advocates and are a special case, and that he hoped that England would emulate Wales in this respect. Like him, I am sure that there is as much need for a children's commissioner for England as there is in Wales. That thought may be appropriate in connection with the debate about devolution in England—I know not—but whether that debate proceeds apace or not, I am sure that at some point the need for a similar office, with similar powers and duties, in England will be recognised.
  The House should bear in mind the following principle:
  The well-being of children requires political action at the highest level.
  I have probably broken the pledge of a lifetime in quoting those words, because they are not mine but those of Baroness Thatcher. This is probably the last time that I shall quote her.
  The obvious point is that today's children are tomorrow's society. Every one of us, whoever we represent, agrees that we owe it to future generations to ensure that our children are properly looked after. We must strike a blow on behalf of children, and I believe that the Bill is one such blow. It is a most welcome step in the right direction.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Before my hon. Friend goes into the detail of the Bill, does he agree that
  254
  in setting up the role of the commissioner we must not allow other bodies to believe that the holder of that office is taking the whole responsibility? The commissioner should not offer those bodies a means of escaping the responsibility that a host of local authorities, other public agencies and voluntary organisations now have. I hope that the Children's Commissioner will be able to remind them, co-ordinate them and encourage them, rather than being a means whereby they can avoid their responsibilities.
  Mr. Llwyd: I entirely agree. I see the commissioner's role as similar to that of the Environmental Audit Committee in this House, which cross-cuts and examines each Department in turn to ensure best practice. That is the way forward. My right hon. Friend is right to say that in no circumstances must we scapegoat the commissioner's office or say that if something has gone wrong, it must be his fault. A lot of cross-cutting work has to be done, with devolved and non-devolved organisations, to establish a holistic approach.
  I have already mentioned the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, and I firmly believe, and have believed for some time, that that convention should guide all our thinking on the subject. I agree with the suggestion made by Children in Wales and others, such as Professor Newell, an expert in the field who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), that we should not leave references to rights under the UN convention as implicit. They should be explicit, and mentioned on the face of the Bill. I hope to be able to touch on that issue in a little more detail later, and I hope that we will be able to examine it further in Committee, because it is important.
  No one in this place or outside would deny that bolting on to the Care Standards Bill the clauses that set up the role of the commissioner was a positive step in the right direction. To be fair, I must say that that was done with some degree of urgency in this place, in concert with our colleagues in the National Assembly.
  We are now coming back, within a short time, to strengthen the commissioner's remit and extend it somewhat. The right hon. Member for Fareham said that perhaps it would be better if the commissioner were left for a while to settle down. With great respect, I disagree. Parliamentary time will always be in short supply, and there is also an urgent need to move on; I know that the right hon. Gentleman also believes that the matter is urgent. I can understand why he said what he did—it is perfectly logical that he should do so—but I cannot agree.
  No one would deny that bolting the provisions on to the earlier Act, and then the introduction of this Bill, represent a massive step forward. However, with respect, I have to say that if the National Assembly had had the necessary legislative powers in the first place, no doubt it would have got things right in the first place. One only has to look at the reports and other paperwork that the Assembly produced, saying from the outset that it wanted a wider remit, to realise that that is so. That would have saved time in this place. Of course, for the sake of the children and young people of Wales, I am pleased that we are doing what is necessary now, but I think that had it been within the remit of the National Assembly, everything would have been done in one fell swoop. That may be conjecture, however.

  255
  On 11 September last year I had the honour of chairing a plenary session of the Human Rights International Alliance conference on children's rights, which was held in Central hall, Westminster. I was pleased to be there, because I was the only Member of this place to have been invited to participate, amid a glittering array of international politicians, sociologists and other academics, High Court judges and lawyers. Of course, I was out of my depth. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is very kind. This consensus is getting to me; it is not Christmas, is it?
  As I extolled the virtues of the Children's Commissioner, and said that we in Wales had led the way, I thought that I was making a good point, which would go down fairly well. Far from it—many members of that knowledgeable audience were fully conversant with the role of the Children's Commissioner, which was then bolted on, as it were, to another Act. To a man and woman, they were quite disapproving, because the remit was such as to render the post a glorious piece of window-dressing.
  I shrank in my seat and became less and less obvious as the debate went on. Moira Rayner, the director of the Children's Rights Commission for London, was one of the critics who eloquently described the shortcomings of the office as it was then set up. The criticism—at times, strident—was, however, constructive. I am therefore pleased that the necessary parliamentary time has been secured to address the failings of the current remit.
  It is to the credit of the National Assembly that it undertook urgent, in-depth investigations into the issue and considered other European templates for the desired remit. It found that other European countries had commissioners who would act as advocates for children and promote the views of children in society. They would set their agendas as watchdogs and champions for children. They would review and report on aspects of children's matters by reference to the United Nations convention to which I referred.
  Perhaps the best way to sum up the main thrust of the commissioner's remit is by quoting Children in Wales, which in its detailed brief states:
  A Children's Commissioner needs to be able to start from the point of view of the child, and use the statutory powers in order to ensure the best possible outcomes for children.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—on this point only, I hasten to add—that a name change might be in order. It might be better if the commissioner were called the children's and young persons' commissioner because—this is an obvious point-14 or 15-year-old youngsters find being called a child almost abusive. That might inhibit them from making the necessary contact. I am sure that the Minister will consider such matters in Committee in due course. Such a change would represent a useful step forward.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Would it not be useful for the Government to consider that a similar debate occurred in Committee during consideration of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, because of the need to tell young people what their rights are and how they can gain access to advocacy services? The point was made about the need to address children and young people in terms that they
  256
  understand and think relate directly to them. Will my hon. Friend commend the points made in that debate to the Minister?
  Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I will commend that debate to the Minister. I think that he served on that Committee.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am wrong again. Oh well, such is life.
  Mr. Hanson: I am afraid that I served on another Committee last year.
  Mr. Llwyd: That is a kind response. I obviously got it wrong.
  I appreciate that this is a Second Reading debate and that, therefore, it is not desirable, strictly speaking, to examine the minutiae of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is vital that areas of weakness are flagged up clearly, and I hope that I shall do so constructively. I am very much guided by the views of the National Assembly. In particular, I refer to the report of its Health and Social Services Committee, which was adopted by the National Assembly on 7 June 2000. The National Assembly was firmly of the opinion that the remits should be extended to cover non-devolved issues.
  We have already debated devolved matters and I do not want to go over them again, but there could be a fundamental flaw in the Bill. The Bill, as I read it, will limit the commissioner's role to devolved matters only, thus reserved mattes s fall outside the scope. The hon. Member for Bridgend referred to some examples, including taxation, and I have mentioned social security, both of which obviously affect young people. With great respect, it is not good enough to say that the commissioner can comment on such matters.
  I can comment on things from a standpoint of half-ignorance, and, being a politician, I do so very often. However, the commissioner will not have proper insights into and access to the internal workings of a body, so how can he or she be expected to make a reasoned and dependable comment on anything?
  Mr. Win Griffiths: We are in danger of having a Committee debate, but I raised the issue and we can explore it in Committee. The commissioner will not be precluded from making intelligent comments because, by virtue of his status, he will have such access and will have compatibility with the similar people, bodies and institutions that exist to serve children in England and Wales.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am not necessarily talking about institutions that serve children. With respect, we are talking about Departments, which deal with reserved matters. As a former Minister, the hon. Gentleman knows well enough that there are walls, Chinese walls and granite walls. Some Departments in this Administration would certainly not allow anyone to see anything—on a need-to-know basis or otherwise.
  Mr. Griffiths: Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that in Wales we are well used to the cultivation of leeks.
  Mr. Llwyd: Touché.

  257
  I shall not deal with the point at length; it was well made by the hon. Gentleman. We have not taken issue with the length of the Standing Committee stage because we want the Bill to proceed with due haste, but without undue haste. I should like to raise such issues this evening so that the Minister will make a brief note of them and we can hear a measured response from him, rather than being told, as is sometimes the case, that the Government will go away and think about them. There is not much time to do so if the Bill is to return to the Floor of the House by 1 February. Unlike a normal Second Reading debate, it is important to deal with some of those details this evening.
  I shall not deal with such matters at great length, but I want to flag up some tangible examples. Health, employment and transport are only partly devolved, but may affect children and young people. That could represent a fundamental flaw in the commissioner's role. I stress that I am trying only to be constructive, but if the commissioner is hampered in that way, the proposal will not be the success that we all want.
  The commissioner seemingly cannot review or monitor matters such as juvenile justice. The right hon. Member for Fareham, having been a prisons Minister, knows how such things work, but I would prefer the remit to be extended, rather than having to depend on the good will of a Department, so that full information and proper access is given to the commissioner, enabling him or her to carry out the work properly.
  Reference has been made to asylum seekers. Family law is currently made here, not in the National Assembly. Nationality, immigration, the environment and family law are all important. The commissioner would presumably not have direct access to the media which is a reserved matter. That is an important point because, like it or not, the media form a big part of young people's education nowadays.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I suggest that my hon. Friend add to his list the training for people in the medical profession and the national health service in Wales because the new Health and Social Care Bill—which will set new regimes and professional standards, especially for family GPs—will be decided on an England and Wales basis in the House. Surely, the Children's Commissioner will want to have an interest in how family GPs are trained, for example, to spot signs of child abuse.
  Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has experience of such matters, having been a councillor in Ceredigion for some years. I am confident that the Minister will take note of those matters and give a considered response in due course.
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has already referred to the need to guard against the dangerous belief that the commissioner will be a panacea for all ills. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the commissioner's role is to be as effective as the strategic role envisaged by Waterhouse, it must be more focused? Although we can accept the enthusiasm of non-governmental organisations to broaden the commissioner's role, we have to be realistic.
  Mr. Liwyd: The hon. Gentleman's standpoint is entirely logical, but obviously I do not agree with him, because the thrust of my argument is in the other direction.
  258
  It is a fundamental function of any independent children's champion that he should be able to comment freely on all matters that affect the rights and welfare of children and young persons. That was recognised in paragraph 29 of the National Assembly's report. The Bill broadens the powers of the commissioner, but also limits those powers very strictly to devolved matters—the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. Although I differ from him, we are both sincere about the need to make the Bill work. I cannot help but think that the commissioner will have one hand tied behind his back if we do not include reserved matters in the Bill.
  I suggest that the Bill include a provision similar to section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, to empower the commissioner to comment on matters that are currently excluded. The provision could say, for example, "The commissioner may consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales." That would put the commissioner on a better footing and give him access to areas that are impenetrable at present. It would also enable the commissioner to take a holistic approach and to investigate or research anything that emerges as a key issue through consultation or other contact, such as letters of complaint from children or young people or matters identified by them as needing special consideration and improvement.
  It should be noted that such an amendment would not confer decision-making powers. That would be inappropriate in the current devolution situation. The ability to monitor, report or comment only on the National Assembly's implementation of Westminster legislation is insufficient. I will not labour the point. There are contrary views, and I have no doubt that there will be further discussion at a later date.
  The National Assembly's report also refers to
  an over-arching aim of promoting and upholding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
  As hon. Members have already said, the Bill makes no mention of the convention. There is nothing terribly unusual about requesting such a reference because every Bill now bears a statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. A Bill such as this should encourage all and sundry to act in a manner compatible with the UN convention. When we boil it down there is nothing esoteric or difficult about that convention; it is good common sense and good practice, and part of the commissioner's remit will be to ensure that best practice is adopted, as I am sure we all agree.
  Clause 2 refers to the commissioner's duty to
  promote the rights and welfare of children.
  Of course that is welcome, but why cannot we add words such as "having particular regard to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child"? That would allay the concerns of many hon. Members. I would like the Minister to deal specifically with that question when he responds because it is of concern to a considerable number of children's organisations and Members of the House.
  It is also the declared view of the National Assembly that the Bill should aim to uphold the UN convention. Several hon. Members have said that the Bill is an example of legislating in an area in which the National Assembly has no primary powers. If we make such a

  259
  clarion call and give ourselves a pat on the back, we should not, for heaven's sake, ignore the declared view of the Assembly. That fundamental point has considerable force. We must carefully take on board the legitimate, consensus view voiced by the Assembly; otherwise, legislating in this place on behalf of the Assembly is a sham. I am sure that we will return to that point.
  Another concern is that the commissioner is precluded from commenting on the decisions of courts and tribunals. Other hon. Members have referred to that matter, so I shall not dwell on it. However, although everyone would agree that it would be inappropriate for the commissioner to comment on any cases that are sub judice, it cannot be right to preclude him from commenting on decided cases because law in this state is made not only by Parliament but by precedent in the courts. That is the way in which our constitution evolves. It is therefore as important for the commissioner to be able to scrutinise those decisions as it is for him to comment on the laws that we enact in this place, and his hands may be tied in that regard.
  It would be rather perverse if the appointed children's watchdog in Wales were gagged and prevented from making comments on judicial decisions that might affect, adversely or positively, the children of Wales, while every other citizen was entitled to comment on any high-profile case. Reference has been made to the tragic case of young Damilola Taylor and the high-profile Bulger murder. The Bill will preclude the commissioner from commenting on those cases. That does not make sense. It will not only demean the commissioner's office but, more important, it will make his job more difficult. It will not sound good if, when invited to comment on a high-profile case, the guardian of children's rights has to say, "No comment." I ask the Minister to respond to that point.
  Will the Minister also elaborate on section 74(3)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000, with which he is of course conversant? Will that section confer on the commissioner the right of access to information and to people, which is seen as vital to his role? The significant words in that section are
  requiring persons … to provide the Commissioner with … other assistance.
  In the light of the Waterhouse report, many commentators feel that the right should be explicit in the Bill. That would place the commissioner in the same position as commissioners in other states and jurisdictions.
  Will the commissioner be empowered to review the effect on children in Wales of the possible failure—dare I say this in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)?—the National Assembly to take action intra vires its powers on behalf of children in Wales? That power is explicit in clause 4(3), which allows the commissioner to review the failure of bodies to make appropriate arrangements for complaints procedures, advocacy and so on. Will that power extend to the National Assembly? If not, why not?
  This has been a long road since the amendment that I tabled in 1993. Of course, I give credit to the Government and the Assembly for acting now and acting urgently, especially in the wake of the Waterhouse report and the horrible abuses that it uncovered. The Government and the National Assembly for Wales have moved rapidly in this instance and I am sure that all hon. Members are
  260
  grateful for that. However, we should not be too hasty with the Bill, as there are many points to be considered and amendments to be discussed properly in Committee.
  It is true that the House sometimes legislates in haste and repents at leisure. We cannot afford to make that mistake with this ground-breaking Bill. My party and I did not challenge the timing and extent of the Committee sittings, and I hope that we shall have proper, reasoned discussion in Committee. Indeed, that is vital. For that reason, I shall break the habit of a lifetime and I, too, shall not vote against the guillotine motion. However, I hope that we will have a meaningful discussion, which is why I have flagged up certain points on Second Reading.
  The Bill is not controversial. My earnest hope is that we will have sufficient time to debate the issues that I have mentioned and will strengthen the measure to safeguard generations of Welsh children and lessen drastically the possibility of the hideous events portrayed in the Waterhouse report being repeated. We have a vehicle that will enable us to listen to the views of our children and, more important, to act upon them to our children's advantage. We all owe it to our children and our children's children to get that right, and I sincerely hope that we shall do so.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Personally, I am delighted that, by their publication of the Bill, the Government have shown, yet again, the high priority that they place on the care and protection of children and young people in Wales. Judging by the favourable public reaction, there can t e little doubt that the Bill has been widely welcomed across the length and breadth of Wales as a positive step. It is a step towards fulfilling the expectations of the Welsh people and the recommendations of the National Assembly for Wales. It is also a step towards meeting the concerns of the House of Commons, following the dreadful events that precipitated the need for the Waterhouse inquiry into child sex abuse in north Wales.
  I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will eye the Bill with great envy. Surely, it forms a blueprint for similar legislation throughout the rest of the United Kingdom in the not too distant future. I am particularly heartened that the Bill has been welcomed by all the main nongovernmental organisations specialising in child protection in Wales: NSPCC Cymru, the Children's Society in Wales, Barnardos Cymru and Save the Children. On a personal note, I am pleased because, as far back as May 1999 the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I have the honour of chairing, made a clear recommendation in its third report, entitled "Childcare in Wales". It said:
  We urge the Assembly to appoint a Children's Commissioner in Wales without delay.
  That is not to say that the Assembly is answerable to the Welsh Affairs Committee. However, it listened and responded to the recommendation that we put to it.
  It is interesting to note that, when the Welsh Affairs Committee took evidence in producing the report, the message that we received was clear and unambiguous and, I am proud to say, mirrors the essence of what we are debating in the House this evening. For example, the Committee was told that there was a need for a Children's

  261
  Commissioner for Wales who was empowered both to represent the needs and views of children and, importantly, to examine the services provided for children in Wales. The Bill delivers on the explicit demands that the Committee heard.
  I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who, in his role as First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, has wasted no time since last summer in ensuring that the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales has been filled as quickly as possible. Last month, on the day after the Queen's Speech in another place, my right hon. Friend announced that Mr. Peter Clarke, the former director of Childline Cymru, had been appointed the first Children's Commissioner for Wales. Along with those on both Front Benches and many other Members, I should like to wish Mr. Clarke every success in his new role. I am sure that, when enacted, the Bill will provide him with the necessary legislative framework to fulfil his role in future.
  Confidence in the protection of children in care was severely undermined throughout Wales, following the heinous crimes—detailed in the Waterhouse report—which, sadly, were committed in north Wales a few years ago. I believe that the new Children's Commissioner, with the enhanced role that is provided for in the Bill, will have a pivotal role in renewing that confidence for future generations of young people in Wales.
  When I read the Bill, I was pleased to see that the new commissioner will not only concentrate on those 3,000 young people in care in Wales. His role will also be extended so that he can act as a promoter of children's rights—the rights of every single child across the length and breadth of Wales—in future. In addition, the commissioner has a role in the oversight of complaints, has powers to undertake formal investigations on matters of principle and will undertake the role of observing child abuse investigations. I believe that we now have in Wales the basis for real and rapid improvement in the protection of children.
  I should be grateful, however, if my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify some matters when he sums up later this evening. One such issue relates to the absence from the Bill of the responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to promote and monitor the implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the convention, and we have already heard eloquent and learned remarks on that from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I understand that, in other European countries, such duty is charged to an agency with a role equivalent to that of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I should therefore be grateful for clarification on that matter. In particular, if that issue is not addressed by the Children's Commissioner for Wales, how does my hon. Friend see it being addressed from a Welsh perspective?
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could respond to a concern that has been expressed to me about the Bill regarding the flexibility for future change. If it was felt that the powers and role of the Children's Commissioner needed to be enhanced further at some stage, how easy
  262
  would that process be?Would it require further primary legislation—as in the current instance—for change to take place?
  Mr. John Hayes: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He asked an important question about the scope of the commissioner's role. Does he feel, like me, that there is a need for clarification of the commissioner's relationship with other agencies? I refer particularly to the relationship between the commissioner and education authorities regarding, for example, children's special educational needs and the protection of their interests. Extra legislation might be required to enable the commissioner to fulfil such a role.
  Mr. Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention: that is precisely the kind of issue to which I am referring. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present at the beginning of our debate, but the Secretary of State referred to the possibility that the Children's Commissioner would be allowed to comment on other matters. I am not sure whether we need to codify that in law.
  Mr. Hayes: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was here when the Secretary of State said that, which is why I intervened on the hon. Gentleman. Allowing the commissioner to comment on those issues is different from giving him an active role—a proactive role, even—in dealing with them. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the legislation that may be necessary to facilitate such a proactive role.
  Mr. Jones: I hope that the Minister will respond to that point. We are happy and proud to welcome the Children's Commissioner for Wales as a pilot that, I hope, will be taken up throughout the United Kingdom. The role may have to grow and unforeseen matters may arise. Even in Committee, amendments may be tabled relating to areas to which the hon. Gentleman and I, too, am referring. The commissioner's role may need to be extended. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point at the end of our debate because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is important.
  The Bill is pioneering and is an important first step. However, further change may be required to ensure that Wales—and the rest of the country, if it takes this proposal up—keeps abreast of further developments in the sphere of children's legislation.
  Although society will never be able to guarantee the most vulnerable children complete protection from being targets of those intent on committing sexual and physical abuse, I believe that the Bill provides the children of Wales with a fresh start and sends a clear signal to those who prey on our children that their evil ways will not be tolerated.
  By giving the Bill a Second Reading, the House can be proud that it is responding to the needs of children in Wales. The Government, to their credit, acted quickly on the recommendations of the Waterhouse and Welsh Affairs Committee reports. By bringing the Bill before the House, the Government have shown that they are prepared to act decisively again—this time to shore up the commissioner's role as laid out in the Care Standards Act

  263
  2000. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to give the Bill their unreserved support and to oppose the reasoned amendment, which the Opposition have so irresponsibly tabled. If agreed to, it would block this useful legislation.
  7.40 pm
  Sir Raymond Whitney: I shall make only a brief contribution on the basis of the short time that I spent as a Minister at the then Department of Health and Social Security during the 1980s, when I had responsibility for social services work throughout the country. In that connection, I should say that I was immensely assisted by Sir William Utting, who of course produced such an important report on the problem of boarding accommodation and the treatment of youngsters in Wales.
  My own background is that for the past 13 or 14 years I have been chairman of a small national charity that works among young people in 10 cities and towns in England and one in Northern Ireland. That gives me a certain insight from a particular point of view, which I shall discuss in more detail.
  Before I do so in terms of the substance of the Bill, I shall comment on a point made by the Secretary of State. He welcomed the Bill, as do we all, but welcomed it as an act of constitutional significance. I have to say, rather sadly and ruefully, that I agree. It is significant that the measure has flowed back to us from the National Assembly for Wales to be dealt with in the Chamber as primary legislation. To put it at its mildest, the Bill leaves so many loose ends. For example, we had to set aside Standing Order No. 86 and we face the issue, which many hon. Members have discussed, of what is or is not to be done with the non-devolved legislation. The Secretary of State said, "The commissioner would not be debarred from comment if it was not in his statutory remit." Big deal, as one might say. None of us is debarred from comment. That is a serious problem that highlights the constitutional inadequacies of what we have created, and it is of course only the latest of many examples.
  Although this matter is a long way from children in Wales, I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me a moment to raise it. The other day, a Chinese delegation—remarkably perhaps, a constitutional commission considering ways to run countries—was in this country. When its members arrived in London, they thought that they had found the holy grail or reached Mecca—they were in the most ancient, stable and mature democracy where we have all the experience and all the answers.
  Over the delegation's time here, I watched its members as they saw what was happening in Wales and in Scotland—Ireland they knew was a problem—and with the Mayor of London. They also considered whether we are to have regional assemblies and all the rest of it. They were simply staggered that we were in such a mess. Were they listening to the debate, they would realise that we are still tacking the Bill together and leaving those loose ends even though we all agree with and welcome the proposal and know what is needed. That is highly unsatisfactory.
  Mr. Llwyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting China as a democratic model to follow.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: No. Had the hon. Gentleman been listening a little more carefully, he would have heard
  264
  me say that, of all countries, we were being visited by a constitutional commission from China. I think that Hansard will confirm that. I have some background in China, which is why I was involved in that visit. I find the country particularly intriguing and let us have our fun, but I hope that he accepts that my point is a serious one. Indeed, he referred to the unsatisfactory nature of the issue of non-devolved legislation. Having said that, we all agree that the Bill deals with an immensely important matter and anyone who has been closely involved in it for any time and in any capacity knows just how difficult it is.
  Mr. Hayes: Before my hon. Friend moves on to describe his own insight on those matters, which I know is profound, will he acknowledge that the picture of inconsistency that he paints could be worse than even he foresees? Expectations will be raised by the measure, which is precisely why I posed my question about the scope and extent of the commissioner's responsibilities. If expectations are raised but are then thwarted because the constitutional bars that he describes are in place, we may be in a situation even worse than that which he describes.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: I would not vie with my hon. Friend to paint the darkest shade of black, but we have the same misgivings.
  Work with young people was difficult when I had to deal with it. In my experience, it has become more difficult in the past 10 or more years. For example, until recently, my own charity always targeted young teenagers—the 12 to 14-year-olds. The idea was to spot trouble, head it off and lead their energies into productive rather than destructive areas. We opened a new venture a few months ago and the people on the ground—parents, the residents association, teachers and the Churches—said to us, "No, no, no. It is no good leaving it until the children are 12 or 14. You have to go in much earlier." They suggested five; we compromised on eight. That is a measure of the challenge facing society.
  The other challenge is to strike a balance, as always, between rights and duties, in particular those of parents. I always felt great admiration for many and sympathy for all the social workers with whom I dealt. They had an immensely difficult job. Social workers will always get some things wrong. They either intervene too quickly and too strongly or hold back and things go wrong. That results in the terrible reports that we read all too regularly in the press. We were reminded only last week of how bad that can be.
  There are great dangers. Knowing of them, I was somewhat worried by another phrase used by the Secretary of State, who said, "The role of the commissioner extends to all children in Wales." Well, yes, but there is an awfully worrying echo in that statement. I do not know Mr. Peter. Clarke, but everyone speaks highly of him, and I am sure that he will be aware of those anxieties. His remit should not, need not and must not cover certain areas, and many children and many homes will not need his intervention. We must ensure that the family is sound and well supported by the other agencies of government. It is open to challenge whether Chancellors of the Exchequer, either of the previous Conservative Government or this Government, and

  265
  policies concocted in the Treasury are conducive to achieving the objective that we all share: the solid family unit.
  Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that good, decent, ordinary parents want to promote the rights of their children and the participation of their children in society, and want to know that their children, wherever they are inside or outside the home, are protected and have their rights upheld?
  Sir Raymond Whitney: Absolutely. I spend some of my spare time helping to achieve that very end—there is no doubt about that. We are putting great onus on the Children's Commissioner, which is a good thing, but I strongly endorse the points that many hon. Members have made. This measure is no panacea, and the problem cannot be left entirely to the commissioner. The other agencies concerned must not think that they have been let off the hook. That is the strong message coming out of the debate. I have no doubt that Mr. Clarke does not need to hear that message, because if he is as good as everyone tells me he is, he will know it already.
  An important balance must be struck. One can feel the tensions only when one is working on the ground. I have no reason to suppose that this measure will not be a useful pathfinder. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). There may be a case for going a little slower. My first reaction as an Englishman is to say, "What about England?" Having got to where we are, perhaps we should see how the concept works in practice in Wales, and adopt it or modify it.
  The English dimension is important, but it often gets forgotten, and this is a glaring example of that. It behoves the Government to take note of that. So far, they have had a pretty easy ride. The English are very quiescent and quiet, and the eyes of people in the audience often glaze over when I try to warn them about the impact of devolution. So far the penny has not dropped, but it is beginning to drop. There will be trouble ahead when people realise that the Scottish people enjoy different treatment and that there are differences in Wales. It behoves all of us to take note of that danger and to avoid that trouble.
  I welcome the creation of this new post, with the caveats that many hon. Members have made. I shall deal with the famous reasoned amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Infamous."] I thought hon. Members might say that, as it has come under so much criticism. The procedures of this extraordinary place in which we do our business lead to such oddities. I entirely agree with the thrust of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). We are trying to probe the Government to ensure that all the issues are brought out into the open and examined, especially in Committee. Before making up my mind about the reasoned amendment, I shall listen carefully to the winding-up speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).
  7.55 pm
  Mrs. Betty Williams: I have received many letters and telephone calls about the Bill before and after its publication. I should like to thank children's organisations in Wales—I shall not mention them, in case I leave any of them out—for their highly responsible
  266
  lobbying of Members of Parliament and Members of the National Assembly for Wales to achieve the aims of the Bill.
  The Care Standards Act 2000 was an excellent start and offered protection for children. It has been welcomed by scores of individuals, organisations and local authorities. The Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill is a further measure to protect children, so 12 December, which was when it was published, is another important milestone. The Bill is another clear example of how much the Government care about children's welfare and safety.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on the speed with which they and the Government responded to the calls for the appointment of a Children's Commissioner. After the Waterhouse report recommended the creation of that post in February last year, the Care Standards Bill was amended. At the beginning of December, Peter Clarke was appointed commissioner. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him all the very best in his new post. We must not underestimate the enormous task that he faces.
  Peter Clarke comes from Childline Wales, which is a successful organisation where he gained valuable experience in dealing with highly sensitive and complex issues concerning children in Wales. The National Assembly for Wales and child care organisations called for an extension of the commissioner's powers, and the Government have responded with this new Bill. That is further proof of how the partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and the Government is working and delivering for Wales. It is an excellent example of devolution working for Wales by responding quickly with primary legislation in Westminster to address the particular needs of Wales.
  Wales has led the way in the United Kingdom with the creation of this post. It shows that the Government accept that devolution means tackling problems in different ways in different parts of the United Kingdom.
  Yesterday in Cardiff, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs published its report on social exclusion in Wales. During our inquiry, we took evidence from children's organisations and from young people themselves. We said in our report:
  The vulnerability of children looked after by local authorities has been highlighted by the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal. We welcome the National Assembly's swift response to the Tribunal's report and the priority which it is giving to meeting the recommendations made.
  We also said:
  We were impressed by the work being done by the Children's Rights Service in North Wales (whom we visited in Wrexham) both in providing advocacy for children looked after, and, more particularly, in assisting them in speaking up for themselves. We suggest that all local authorities—and, more particularly, the children in their care—could benefit from an independent Children's Rights Service similar to those already in operation in some parts of Wales.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify two matters. First, if a child from Wales receives education, health care or social care outside Wales, what remit does the Children's Commissioner for Wales have to make decisions and consider issues that relate to those providing authorities? My second point is more complex and concerns another vulnerable group in society. Adults with severe learning disabilities might never be able to become

  267
  witnesses in a court of law. The main fears of a parent of such a child is how that child is protected against possible abusers and who will protect him or her when the parents die.
  I speak as a mother of a 27-year-old young man who has the mind of a very young child. He would never be able to tell me if he had been physically or mentally abused. I hope that what we are discussing is welcome on both sides of the House. However, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could say whether he is willing to extend the commissioner's remit even further to cover that vulnerable group of people.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: I take the view that children are just like adults who tell the truth about how they feel, and have not forgotten to marvel at the world of people and the nature that is around them. Child abuse is a form of robbery. Abusers often have tremendous problems of their own, such as psychosis. It is almost as if they trade their pain for the innocence of the children they abuse. That pain and abuse can never really be satisfied or resolved in that way and the child who is being abused quickly becomes robbed of his or her happiness. Abused children tend to hide their feelings. In some ways, they live as children who have an almost adult sad attitude to the burdens that they have inherited from their experiences. Sadly, statistics tell us that they may repeat the cycle, which is difficult to break.
  The tragic experiences of abused children in Wales have for once not led to a knee-jerk reaction in the Chamber. However emotionally involved we may feel as a society, or how those people who are directly involved may feel, we have taken stock. It is to the great credit of politicians and, in particular, the organisations that attempt to help such victims, often on a voluntary basis, that we have found our way to a truly constructive political opportunity that could make a profound difference to past and, especially, future victims of abuse. The determination of whether the Children's Commissioner has been successful is if we prevent abuse from happening. That is not a short-term goal. We will not know for many years whether his work is successful. It serves as a great source of optimism to me that we are discussing the issue on a broadly cross-party basis and, more to the point, with a genuine insight, which has been fed to us by the many organisations that have probably briefed us all, and from our experience of life.
  A number of issues will be raised in Committee. Most have been mentioned. The need for the Children's Commissioner to be empowered to consider and to make appropriate representations on any matter that affects children in Wales was well described and I shall not repeat the argument. The importance of the commissioner having direct contact with children cannot be overstated, not least because there is no doubt in my mind, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for young people, that they do not believe that the political system is for them and that there is a voice in the corridors of power for them to turn to or trust to be their advocate.
  Children who are put off at a fairly young age from everything that we do here are unlikely to inherit an interest in us or find us appealing later on. If children are
  268
  victims of abuse and do not have faith in the systems, they will not turn to them for help. If the Children's Commissioner has direct contact with children and progressively builds respect and a culture of hope among them so that they believe that they have a voice, that will be tremendously important. I suspect that amendments will help to achieve that.
  It has already been stated that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child should be promoted by the commissioner. The Government might be a little hesitant to allow that to happen because it might have knock-on consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is clear from working on Northern Ireland human rights legislation that some parts of British society do not live up to the full spirit of the convention on human rights. Allowing the commissioner to have such powers in Wales would probably have a ripple effect. We should not be scared of that. We are, after all, signatories and even if there are unintentional consequences, such as not having a differential minimum wage between young and older people, so be it, because it would also be healthy. We would be putting our money where our mouth is if we say that the strategy is to get it right and ensure that we change those aspects of our activities that are some way from our desired goal.
  Hon. Members asked for the commissioner to be given powers to promote public awareness of children's rights. That was spot on, but we must ensure that we do not give him a nebulous goal that we do not understand in specific terms or which is not achievable. With such an aspiration, we have to ensure that there are resources and opportunities to go with his responsibilities. For example, if we are serious about a giving the commissioner the power to promote public awareness, he must have access to the highest levels of government in Wales. That would not be hard because the Welsh Assembly is clearly behind the proposal.
  We must be holistic about those considerations. Save the Children raised the concept of holism with me only today. Rebecca Hickman, who is one of its key officers on the Bill, rightly explained that we must ensure that we end up with a holistic vision and a job that is internally consistent. As we amend the Bill, we must ensure that we do not tack on everything that we want and create a confusing role that is not manageable by one person.
  Other points have been made. I shall refer to only two, because repetition is not always helpful.
  Mr. Evans: What was that again?
  Mr. Öpik: Repetition is not always helpful. Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman presented me with an irresistible opportunity.
  It will be interesting to hear the clarification of what the commissioner is allowed to investigate with regard to devolved powers. The Assembly's report on the Children's Commissioner has been mentioned. Paragraphs 29 and 30 address that matter to some extent. They seem to imply that the commissioner is expected to have reasonably clear powers in that regard. Paragraph 29 states:
  The widest possible functions in respect of non-devolved policies and services should be explored and, as a minimum, the Commissioner should be able to consider and make representations in respect of any non-devolved matters affecting children in Wales in a way similar to the Assembly's right under section 33 of the Government of Wales Act.

  269
  Therefore, it seems that the Assembly takes a similar view to Members in this House. I suspect that the issue does not cause the Minister and the Government much difficulty, but we must be careful to be consistent in what we ask of the commissioner and ensure that any enabling amendments that we table are consistent with the general constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom.
  We must test the Bill and any amendments to it in the light of cross-border provision. That point has already been made, but I highlight it now because it will be a potential source of strain in the commissioner's work if he cannot carry out his desired functions and achieve the Minister's aspirations simply because of something that we have missed at this stage. Given the importance of the issue before us, it would be a travesty if insufficient scrutiny led to a tragedy in the way in which children are treated.
  The Waterhouse report and the Children in Wales briefing refer to suicide and the importance of the commissioner having a right of access to institutions. That is vital. Although it may not be pleasant to refer to this issue, the consequences of abuse last a lifetime unless the people involved are treated. Even then, the echoes of their tragic past may recur from time to time. A number of people who gave evidence to the Waterhouse inquiry said that suicide is often a consequence, so the right of access is one insurance policy that we could establish. It is not absolutely reliable, but it would empower the commissioner and his staff and that might ensure that we have a better chance of detecting the problems before they occur.
  I am concerned about the tone of some parts of the Bill. Much of it is about looking for the danger signs and the problems, but I wish to ensure that we do not create a children's police officer—someone who simply polices Wales to ensure that bad things do not happen. We do not want to create a culture of suspicion in which everyone looks over their shoulder and many people fear that a malicious claim could be made against them and that they will be investigated in a high-profile way by the commissioner.
  We need to give thought to the precedents that the commissioner's mode of operation will set and to ensuring that we do not create a culture in which we assume that someone might be an abuser or might not be treating children in an appropriate fashion. That is unlikely to happen across the whole of Wales, but, if we are not careful, there may be a residue of concern in places that have historically been associated with abuse if they have not already been closed down. Discussion of possible solutions is more appropriate for the Committee stage, but I mention that as a strategic issue now.
  My other concern about the Bill's tone is that, although it mentions empowerment, it is primarily aimed at preventing abuse. Would it not be great if kids could view the commissioner as someone who could help them to make the best of themselves? The commissioner could occasionally present ideas to the Assembly or to this House that could genuinely add value to the opportunities that children in Wales enjoy. That would provide a fantastic opportunity and would put the question of stopping cruelty in context. Society's objective is not to prevent cruelty, but to help people make the best of themselves and to help kids feel that they can achieve their potential. That is the other side of the
  270
  commissioner's role. I hope that, in Committee, thought will be given to how we can provide him with that positive opportunity.
  I suspect that if we do that, young people will become much more inclined to think that they can access the commissioner and participate in his work directly. They will not feel stigma or think that they can call the commissioner only if they have been abused. They will not think that calling the commissioner means making a confession about the suffering that they have experienced.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman speaks passionately about the subject, and rightly so. Has he, like me, received representations from people who work in organisations that deal with young people? In many cases, they find the fee of £11.75 that has to be paid to consult criminal records quite prohibitive. One measure that might help many organisations to weed out the undesirables from working with young people would be to allow them to go through the criminal records without incurring an enormous cost.
  Mr. Öpik: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, even though he was a little horrible to me earlier. As he suggests, the Children's Commissioner has an opportunity to bring the issue of police checks into his role. Through appropriate lobbying in Wales at least, we might be able to ensure that people do not have to pay for the privilege of proving their innocence. That issue is of great concern to many organisations involved in youth work in Wales. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will consider the suggestion.
  I want to make a few observations about the political opportunity that the Bill presents. Although the matter did not appear in the Conservative party's manifesto in Wales, it is a source of great encouragement that, on a cross-party basis in Wales and almost on a cross-party basis in this Chamber, we are achieving a powerful consensus that sends a strong message.
  I shall now be a little horrible to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), because he claimed that he was trying to help the Bill. If his approach is his idea of helping the Bill, I wonder what tools are in the Conservative party's repertoire for harming it. There is a consensus and consensus politics might be a little less sparky than opposition politics, so we should perhaps thank him for giving the rest of us the chance to unite in criticising the reasoned amendment. However, will he consider what message will be sent if Conservative Members vote for the amendment? Although it may be a parliamentary tool, it has already been made clear that on this issue, at least, we should not descend into a party political discussion when all of us, including the Welsh Conservatives, have worked hard to create a consensual approach in line with the new politics that many of us sincerely hoped would evolve in Cardiff.
  I encourage the hon. Gentleman to reconsider pushing the amendment to a vote. As I said earlier, not a single youth-related organisation in Wales will thank the official Opposition for voting for it. It sends the wrong signals. Although they may have talked themselves into a corner tonight, I hope that, whatever happens, they will take a more constructive approach in Committee. Incidentally, if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I join the Labour party reflects the Conservative party's new recruitment policy, it shows just how much its self-confidence has declined.

  271
  I am almost certain that some Members of this Chamber have been victims of child abuse. I do not know who they are, but it would be statistically extraordinary if, out of 659 Members, not one of us had suffered from such an experience. Guided by our experiences as children, by the experiences of those of us who faced unhappier times and by the experiences and expertise of the organisations that briefed many Members so effectively, I hope that the Bill will achieve three objectives.
  First, I hope that it will empower those children's organisations truly to feel that they can participate in the political processes by seeing their suggestions turned into amendments that are accepted on a cross-party basis.
  Secondly, I hope that we can show that we sometimes put party politics second to the people's politics. Thirdly, I hope that we can develop a partnership between Westminster and Cardiff. That relationship has occasionally been strained, but on this issue we have the opportunity to work together and to say something encouraging to the Welsh people, perhaps for the first time: when Westminster and Cardiff think together, talk together, argue together and put their heads together to try to do what is right, we shall get better legislation than we would without a devolved Assembly.
  That is all being done to achieve a result that we all want and about which we care profoundly. That is to give kids a real chance of a better life and to give kids who have been damaged a chance to heal. To paraphrase the words of the NSPCC—which has coined a phrase about which I feel passionately—perhaps we can also, finally, put a full stop to cruelty to children in Wales.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I start with an apology for being absent from the debate for a couple of hours on some previously arranged business in the House. I am sorry that I missed what I hear has been an extremely good-natured and participatory debate on all sides.
  It is a privilege to have the opportunity to take part in the debate, not least as an English Member of Parliament trespassing in a country that I have not visited since I took my kids there on a very nice seaside holiday in the early 1980s. Principally, I am here because I am extremely interested in the development of the Children's Commissioner. The proposal is extremely important, and I hope to elaborate on why it is important as we go on.
  We need to acknowledge the progress that the Bill represents. We need to reflect on and savour the aim of this excellent and far-sighted measure. It will enable the commissioner to review the effect on children ordinarily resident in Wales of actions and proposed actions of the Assembly and of bodies and persons operating in Wales that have statutory functions or provide statutory services in functional fields devolved to the Assembly. That is a great step forward for children. This is a real slice of history, and it represents real progress in the way in which we see, serve and protect children.
  Many congratulations are due to the people involved in the introduction of the Bill. I have had the pleasure of meeting in the House a number of young people from
  272
  Wales, usually in the context of the all-party group for looked-after children Invariably, they have been strong, articulate, determined and very committed to the idea of a Children's Commissioner. This measure is one of the fruits of devolution, and the Welsh Assembly is to be congratulated on its work and on the priority that it has given to a social policy issue that has been neglected for far too long. The fact that the Assembly is prepared to give so much priority to the measure illustrates the health and progressive nature of that body.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman waxes lyrical about the Bill, but will he explain why the Government have given priority to the rights of children in Wales but have not been prepared to give the same rights and protection to children in England? Surely children in England and Wales—and, indeed, Scotland and Northern Ireland—deserve the protection that is to be afforded by the Bill.
  Mr. Dawson: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. That will be the theme of my speech.
  To return to the thread of my argument, the Welsh Assembly should be congratulated, but the Government need to be congratulated too. Less than a year ago, even when the Waterhouse report was published—the report is one good reason for the measure being introduced in Wales—the Government were not committed to introducing a commissioner whose remit would go beyond that of the children's rights director, as set out in the Care Standards Act 2000. The children's rights director is a very important post for children who are looked after or who are living away from home, but the Bill goes much further than that.
  The Government are to be congratulated on listening to the issues dealt with by the Bill, and on the fact that, in their formal response to the Waterhouse report, they said that they would examine how the post of Children's Commissioner worked out as a result of the Bill, with a view to introducing further legislation for England. I am pleased to hear that, because a Children's Commissioner offers fundamental protection for children, but an independent office with a children's rights commissioner would promote the participation of children in society and awareness of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child among those working with children.
  Mr. Evans: While the hon. Gentleman was absent from the Chamber, I congratulated him on his private Member's Bill, which deals with that issue. He represents Lancaster and Wyre and I represent Ribble Valley. Will he accept that it is absurd that children in Wales should receive greater protection than children in England? They should all be protected equally, with a children's commissioner operating in Wales and in England. We congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, but they should also introduce legislation to protect children in England.
  Mr. Dawson: The hon. Gentleman heard my response to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He can take it from me that I agree with that fundamental point.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dawson: May I carry on for a while before I allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again?
  I have brought to the House twice—in 1999 and 2000—the Children's Rights Commissioner Bill. It proposes the setting up of a children's rights commissioner in England, with linked officers in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is 16th in the ballot for private Members' Bills, so I shall reintroduce it tomorrow. Given the Government's attitude to the measure, I think that there might be some progress on it. Their determination to introduce a root-and-branch reform of the child protection system and the Laming inquiry into the horrible death of Anna Climbie, should it come about, could result in further progress on the idea of a children's rights commissioner in England.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: We all agree that the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill is a good thing. Will he urge his colleagues on the Front Bench to give his Bill Government time? After all, a precedent has been set by the Hunting Bill. If the Government it can make time for the Hunting Bill, surely they can do so for the hon. Gentleman's Bill. Furthermore, does he agree that, as this is such an important issue—we are all in favour of the protection of children—the Government ought to protect the maximum number of children by extending the Bill to England as well as Wales?
  Mr. Dawson: There would be no sense in my introducing a private Member's Bill that I did not really want the Government to take on and give their own time to.
  The introduction of a children's rights commissioner for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would be of fundamental importance in protecting children, promoting the participation of children and encouraging a different way of viewing children, which in itself would aid their protection. It would be a way of viewing children as developing adults with individual human rights, rather than as objects of concern about whom we have great debates and hear terrible shock-horror stories when awful events happen but then neglect and ignore. Children in this country do not have a vote and are, by definition, powerless. They often do not have a voice, and their interests are often set aside.
  The Bill could be improved in the way that I described in an intervention on the Secretary of State. A Government who have done such powerfully good work in relation to child poverty should ensure that the fundamental safeguard for children's rights in Wales can inquire into issues surrounding social security. I do not have an explanation of why the Children's Commissioner can examine the position of children who are looked after in Wales, but as yet has no statutory role in relation to young people who are in custody or who are in other parts of the youth justice system. I do not recognise any distinction that explains that.
  As many hon. Members have said, the Bill should make reference to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Almost every country in the world has signed up to the convention. Two have not done so: one is Somalia, the other is the United States of America.
  274
  Anyone who had seen today's disgraceful coverage of the sale of children over the internet in the United States of America would advocate that every state in that union get hold of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child immediately to deal with that appalling situation.
  I should like the Children's Commissioner to be able to report freely, to have no limit on the matters to which he may contribute, to be able to represent children's views, to be able to comment on the effects of United Kingdom legislation on children in Wales, to have direct contact with children and to be able to review the effect of a failure of services in Wales as well as the provision of them. Above all, the Children's Commissioner should be someone of whom children in Wales are aware. The commissioner should be able to take on a dynamic role, enabling children's participation.
  I was sorry to read the not particularly reasoned amendment tabled on behalf of the Conservative party. It is, quite simply, a ludicrous idea that the Bill could be any sort of attack on parents. I would say to every parent in the land that no ordinary, sensible parent has anything to worry about in relation to children's rights.
  I do not often give the Conservatives their due, but in the Children Act 1989, a very fine and noble measure, they abolished the concept of parental rights and introduced the concept of parental responsibility—a way of looking at relationships within families that is fundamentally different from the one that had prevailed previously. The fact that Members of the party that could introduce that legislation less than 12 years ago have now got to the silly scaremongering stage that we see in the reasoned amendment is a reflection of how far they have moved—how far they have fallen.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to give some due to the official Opposition, and he has said that he is looking to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner beyond the devolved areas. Several Labour Members have done the same, as have Members on the Liberal and Plaid Cymru Benches, and that is an integral part of our reasoned amendment. It seems as though everyone agrees with our reasoned amendment but wishes that we had not tabled it.
  Mr. Dawson: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. The large part of his reasoned amendment, and the part that leaps off the page, is the entirely unsubstantiated claim that a Children's Commissioner should have no part in family life, and that the commissioner represents some sort of threat to ordinary families. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the NSPCC studies that report the extent of abuse within families. If he was really committed to a Children's Commissioner, he would want that commissioner to be involved with all children.
  Ordinary parents should be the greatest advocates for children's rights. As I said in an intervention, ordinary parents should want their children to participate in and get the best deal from society, and should want to see their children upheld as free individuals with rights, to whom duties are owed by them and by institutions outside the family home.
  This excellent Bill might be improved during its passage. I should like some alterations to be made, but we should acknowledge that the Government have made a

  275
  great deal of progress in a very short time. I want a network of children's rights commissioners, but the Bill lays a huge duty on the people of Wales to make this excellent institution work and to show the rest of the United Kingdom exactly how it can be done.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Chris Ruane: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I welcome the appointment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales and I am proud of the fact that Wales is the first of the home countries in the United Kingdom to appoint such a commissioner.
  There is great consensus within Wales—I emphasise, within Wales—on the issue of a Children's Commissioner. The voluntary sector, agencies, local authorities and every political party have worked together in the best interests of the children of Wales. It is very disappointing that the consensus has been shattered by the antics of the official Opposition today, here in Westminster, and I know that their Conservative colleagues in Wales share our disappointment at their behaviour and tactics.
  I am pleased that the leader of the Conservatives in Wales, Mr. Nick Bourne, has been quoted on PA NewsFile. I read out the quotation in an intervention earlier, when the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), the Opposition spokesman, was out of the Chamber for an extended period, so perhaps I should repeat what the leader of the Conservatives in Wales said when he found out that the Conservatives at Westminster had shattered the consensus:
  When I said that there were no differences I was certainly not aware of any difference. Subsequently I found out that there was a difference of emphasis but we are not going to change our position. We are not going to stand on our heads for anybody.
  That was quite a principled stand.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has just read out something that purports to come from the leader of the Conservatives in Wales, where we wish to strengthen the powers of the Children's Commissioner. In which way would we be asking anyone to stand on their heads? Indeed, a number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues have asked for the strengthening of the commissioner's powers. Does he wish those powers to be extended, or does he not?
  Mr. Ruane: If your tactics and antics—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Ruane: It is the strategy that your party is using—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this place for a little while now. He should do a little better than that. I think that "hon. Gentleman" are the two words for which he is looking.
  Mr. Ruane: It is the strategy and tactics that the Conservative party is using in Westminster that have upset the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Cardiff and in every other party in the House.
  276
  As a north Wales Member, I remind the House that the impetus for a Children's Commissioner for Wales lies in the north Wales child abuse inquiry, and Mr. Justice Waterhouse's recommendation that such a position should be created in Wales. Something good has come out of something evil. The reign of terror that raged in north Wales for 30 years came to an end. We should welcome the fact that we are to get a Children's Commissioner.
  Those who suffered I abuse and those who suffer the after-effects of it may take some solace from the fact that the public, including policy makers and elected representatives in Wales, were so outraged when they heard of the experiences of the young people involved that a groundswell of opinion grew to establish a Children's Commissioner. For some, the news of a commissioner comes too late. I refer to those who committed suicide as a result of their experiences, those who died of drug abuse and those who died of alcohol abuse when they tried to escape the nightmares of their experiences.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the commissioner has yet to set up offices. I suggest that my right hon. Fried use his position to ask the commissioner to consider north Wales as the location for his offices, in recognition of the role played by the north Wales child abuse inquiry and in tribute to young children, alive or dead, who suffered so terribly in north Wales homes.
  The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs published the results of its inquiry into social exclusion in Wales yesterday, in Cardiff. During the inquiry, members of the Committee made a deliberate attempt to listen to the youth of Wales. We visited many projects, including one in my constituency that was set up to look after young schoolgirls who became pregnant. That group is in Rhyl high school in my constituency. We listened to the experiences of the young mothers. We held a meeting for youth from throughout Wales at Chynlleth. Young people spoke with passion on a range of issues. A young lad told us that he had left school at the age of 14, having been bullied by his school mates because he was a homosexual. Others spoke freely and openly about abuse, violence, drugs and alcohol.
  At first, the young people were hesitant when six or seven Members sat with them. There were about 50 young people from throughout Wales. We split into different groups and listened to them. They were wary of us because we were besuited and came from Westminster. When they knew that we were prepared to listen—we were not talking at them and we were prepared to act—they realised the importance of the session and opened up. The appointment of a commissioner for Wales stems partly from the response of the young people of Wales. It has been welcomed by many children's groups and by children in Wales. The commissioner's position will be made that much better because of the rapport that he will have with young people in Wales.
  Ms Debra Shipley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the children of England could similarly benefit from a commissioner? Does he welcome Lord Laming's examination of systems? We need a national body for the protection of children. We have put the Protection of

  277
  Children Act 1999 on the statute book, and Lord Laming was much involved. I welcome his appointment. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
  Mr. Ruane: I, too, would welcome a similar commissioner for England, and for Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, that is not what we are debating. I would welcome commissioners being appointed for the other home countries.
  The youth of England and Wales will have the opportunity to articulate their concerns. They will speak of their experiences, and perhaps most importantly they will offer solutions to the problems that have been experienced. A key role for the commissioner will be to ascertain the problems and to listen to young people to find out what they consider the solutions to be.
  In the inquiry of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs into social exclusion we took evidence from more than 100 groups throughout Wales over 11 and a half days of visits. A recurrent theme in the evidence that we took from the people whom we spoke to and the groups that we visited was the lack of statistics, or the lack of access to statistics, that could help the groups to fulfil their functions. A key task of the commissioner, as set out in the Bill, will be to use his power to gather information, to collate it and to commission statistics. With that information he will be able to influence policy, instigate inquiries and hold to account elected bodies, quangos and others who deal with children.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said that she felt that the commissioner should be able to comment on any matter that affected the children of Wales, whether that be a United Kingdom function or the responsibility of this National Assembly for Wales. I share my hon. Friend's viewpoint.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the commissioner will have the right to comment on matters that are the responsibility of the UK Government. If I heard him correctly, I think he said that UK Government Departments would be in difficulty if they did not respond to the Children's Commissioner for Wales. However, those Departments may not be in a position to respond to requests for information and statistics from the commissioner.
  I shall give some examples from my recent experience. I have tabled many written questions about children over the past eight weeks to gain an insight into some of the problems faced by children in Wales and the UK. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  how many children have been reported as missing in each of the last 20 years.
  I was told that the information was not centrally available. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
  what estimate he has made of the number of children involved in prostitution in each of the last 20 years.
  The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr a Clarke), replied:
  The Home Office does not collect data on the number of children involved in prostitution.
  I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many female pupils were excluded from school because of pregnancy in England
  278
  between 1980 to 2000. I was told by the Minister that the information was not held centrally by the Department. I asked
  the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many companies were prosecuted for illegally employed children in each of the last 20 years.
  The Minister of State told me that limited information was available. Finally, I tabled the following question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been reported as missing in each of the last 20 years.
  I received this answer:
  Figures are not available to confirm the precise numbers of children reported missing each year …—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 55–64W.]
  Those were requests by an ordinary Back Bencher for information that I thought necessary, but which is not available now and was not available under the previous Government. It is about time these important statistics, which influence policy making, were made available. Their availability would make Ministers' jobs in helping to improve the lot of young people and children much easier.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in a unique position, as he will be fully aware of best practice on children's issues in Wales and can relate that information to his Cabinet colleagues. He can raise with them issues such as those to which I have just referred, which concern the collection and co-ordination of statistics. Such issues are important in respect of problems such as missing children, child prostitution, child labour and domestic violence involving children.
  I do not want to be too critical, but I wonder whether the National Assembly for Wales can give the commissioner any detailed statistics that are requested on its areas of responsibility: education, social services, housing and so on. If United Kingdom Departments and the National Assembly for Wales co-operate fully in supplying the commissioner with the statistics and information that he requires, the task of improving the lives of all children in Wales will be more readily achieved.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I add my voice to those of other hon. Members who have welcomed the Bill. I share the dismay expressed by many Labour Members at the official Opposition's extraordinary ambivalence to the Bill, which is, from any viewpoint, a genuinely progressive social measure that all reasonable people should accept.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was entirely right to begin his speech by referring to the Bill as an example of the working partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and Parliament. There is a continuing need for a co-ordinated and strategic approach to prevent the widespread and systematic abuse that has occurred in Welsh children's homes and which was only too obvious after the publication of the Waterhouse report. That abuse was, of course, accompanied by a culture of fear that stopped people involved in the system, including victims, speaking out. It deterred them from feeling that they could trust people and tell them what was going on.
  It was, therefore, no surprise that one of the main recommendations of the Waterhouse report—the genesis of the Bill and of the campaign for its introduction—

  279
  was the creation of an independent role to oversee regulated functions relating to children in care in Wales. Of course, the creation of the office of Children's Commissioner cannot guarantee that abuse will not occur, but I hope that it will enable the creation of proper safeguards and encourage a culture of more openness and greater willingness to listen to children.
  I was especially impressed by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who said that the Bill represents a sea change in the way in which we regard children and that it involves a recognition of their rights within the wider society. I hope that it will engender a culture of greater willingness to blow the whistle and sure and certain steps and procedures to ensure that that happens. That is why the commissioner's key functions—the monitoring and oversight of complaints and of the whistleblowing procedures established by local authorities and other authorities involved with the care of children—are vital.
  I agree with the view expressed by a number of hon. Members that we should guard against regarding the creation and development of the role of the Children's Commissioner as a panacea for all ills. I agree entirely that the briefings that have been submitted to us by charities and non-governmental organisations in Wales are extremely helpful. However, with respect, and as I said in an intervention, I feel that such organisations have been rather too enthusiastic in their wish to extend the role of the commissioner, perhaps unrealistically. I firmly believe that we should stick to the original recommendations of the Waterhouse inquiry. In essence, we should concentrate on children in care and prevent systematic abuse of the sort that occurred in the past.
  If the Children's Commissioner is to do his job effectively, he must have a focused role. We should not overburden that role in a counter-productive way. However, I cannot see why the commissioner should be precluded from commenting on the effects upon children of primary legislation. I was pleased that the Secretary of State appeared to accept that there was nothing in the Bill or elsewhere to prevent that from happening. I also see no reason why the commissioner's role should not be extended to allow him to comment on non-devolved matters. I may have misinterpreted what the Secretary of State said but, again, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening.
  Let me add, however, that the commissioner should not supplant the roles of others engaged in policing our society in the widest sense, especially in relation to young offenders and the criminal justice system—let us not forget the important role of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons.
  We must be aware that there is a restriction on resources, and we must be realistic about what the commissioner can do successfully. Nevertheless, I think we should again consider giving him powers to enter, on occasion, institutions that are under investigation. I am sure that that will be discussed in Committee. I also see no reason why the commissioner should not be able to comment on the decisions of courts and tribunals as they affect children in Wales, in so far as that could be allowed without offending the sub judice principle.
  280
  I welcome the Bill. It constitutes a major step forward in the recognition of children's rights, and is a genuinely progressive piece of social legislation.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Martin Caton: I feel that I should declare a parochial interest. My predecessor, Gareth Wardell, who has already received a tribute this evening, currently chairs Children in Wales, which has received even more tributes for its work in advancing the case for a Children's Commissioner for Wales. Its briefing has been cited in many of today's speeches. I have another parochial interest. The newly appointed commissioner, Mr. Peter Clarke, lives in my constituency, in the fine village of Garnswllt.
  Let us disregard the unfortunate terminology of the "reasoned" device presented by the official Opposition. I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was a positive and useful contribution to our debate about the future of a Children's Commissioner.
  Like every other speaker, I welcome the Bill, mainly because it will considerably improve Welsh children's access to their rights. I also welcome the added protection that it potentially gives them. Furthermore, I consider it to be a significant milestone on the road to a more decentralised Britain and an empowered Wales within the United Kingdom.
  Some in the media and in politics have tried to set up the Welsh tick box in the national census as a significant indicator of the recognition of Wales in the new constitutional settlement after democratic devolution. I think that the Office for National Statistics should have included a Welsh tick box once the Scots had made their decision, but there is no comparison between the tick box issue and this Bill as any measure of where the governance of Wales is going. The Bill is infinitely more important: it represents a positive response by Government in Whitehall and by Parliament at Westminster to what the elected Welsh Assembly tells us it wants, and, more important, what the children of Wales need. The United Kingdom Government are giving a high priority in their eleetoral programme to the call from Cardiff bay and, indeed, from Wales as a whole.
  I think that history will eventually acknowledge that the Bill is something of a landmark in the developing relationship between government in Wales and in the United Kingdom as a whole. Given the Bill's importance both for the children of Wales and for our constitutional development, it might be a good idea for hon. Members to take another look at what the Assembly called for, to reconsider whether, and to what extent, we share the Assembly's vision, and to ask ourselves whether the Bill as drafted can fully deliver that vision.
  The Assembly voted unanimously to establish a Children's Commissioner for all children in Wales, with the overarching aim of promoting and upholding the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Assembly Members wanted a commissioner who could consider and make representations on any matter affecting children in Wales. I am quite sure that the Assembly used as a model the type of children's commissioners and ombudsmen that have been created in some other European countries—where commissioners and ombudsmen set their own agenda in championing the

  281
  rights of children, monitor and review all aspects of children's lives, maintain direct contact with children and speak up for them and promote throughout society respect for children and for their views.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: My hon. Friend is a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which recently conducted an inquiry into social exclusion in Wales. When we were conducting an inquiry into child care in Wales, we visited Denmark. Does he agree that, in Denmark, family policy was at the very heart of governmental, social and economic philosophy, seeking to ensure the welfare of children from newborns to 18-year-olds? In Denmark, enshrining rights was a fundamental aspect of the overall political philosophy. With the establishment of a Chilriren's Commissioner, could we not emulate that in Wales?
  Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I completely agree with his comments. He will remember that in Copenhagen the Select Committee visited Denmark's equivalent of the Children's Commissioner and saw the all-embracing role—which my hon. Friend described—that that commissioner performs.
  The child's point of view is the foundation of the role played by commissioners in Denmark and in other European countries, who seek to secure the best outcome for children. I wonder whether the Bill, as drafted, will establish that type of commissioner. As has already been mentioned, the Bill concerns many of the charities working with children in Wales. The type of commissioner that the Bill seeks to create seems to be modelled more on parliamentary, he filth service and local government ombudsmen services. Although all those services are extremely valuable, they are really concerned more with administering or monitoring service delivery by different tiers of government or their agencies.
  Therefore, although the Bill will extend the commissioner's remit way beyond its current boundaries as established in the Care Standards Act 2000, it still seems to limit the remit to monitoring and reviewing only those matters that have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. It seems that the commissioner will not be able to comment properly on non-devolved matters, regardless of how significant those matters might be in the lives of children or young people who are ordinarily resident in Wales.
  Although my concerns about those aspects of the Bill were eased by the Secretary of State's speech, I am still worried that the commissioner's proposed remit may be too restrictive. The commissioner himself will have no powers of control. His power will be in reviewing, monitoring, highlighting and exposing, by bringing matters to the attention of the public or appropriate authorities.
  I believe that if it will help to take us forward in achieving children's rights and child protection, the commissioner should as a right be able to comment on non-devolved matters, primary legislation or—as hon. Members have said—court decisions. Indeed, when Parliament is considering relevant legislation, why should we as Members of Parliament deny ourselves access to the expert advice of Wales's Children's Commissioner?
  Moreover, how will Welsh children who have been told that the Children's Commissioner is their champion understand it if, when they take a problem to the
  282
  commissioner, they are told, "Sorry. I think that your grievance is genuine, but I cannot help because it is not included in the Government of Wales Act as a devolved matter."
  I hope that the Government will look again at the possibility of redefining the job so that the commissioner can consider and make appropriate representations about any matter affecting children in Wales. Like others who have spoken, I believe that the more specific points that are worrying children's charities should be the subject of more detailed debate in Committee, but it would be useful if my hon. Friend the Minister were to comment on them in his reply to the debate. Some might be best addressed in secondary legislation by the National Assembly; others might be better dealt with in the Bill.
  At the moment there is no requirement for the commissioner to maintain direct contact with children, to pay regard to their views and to promote respect for them throughout Welsh society, although from what I know about the way in which the newly appointed commissioner works, he will certainly do that. However, perhaps it would be better to have an exclusive requirement in the legislation to ensure that that approach is maintained.
  Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the Bill makes no mention of the UN convention on the rights of the child. Should the promotion of public awareness of that important convention be part of the commissioner's role?
  The Bill gives the commissioner no powers to enter institutions that accommodate children. Should he not have that power? The Bill gives him no ability to review what could be described as sins of omission. He cannot consider the failure of the Assembly or other bodies to exercise any of their functions. Does that need to be addressed?
  Mr. Edwards: There are three prisons in Wales and a young offenders institution, which is in my constituency. Although I am not aware of any allegations of abuse involving young people in those institutions, does my hon. Friend agree that an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales should have access if there were any such allegations involving children and that he should be able to intervene in such matters?
  Mr. Caton: I agree completely and I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, that will be precisely the role of the commissioner in Wales.
  The Bill is a valuable and historic piece of legislation. However, it could be improved by going back to the philosophy that lay behind the National Assembly's original decision and extending the job of the commissioner to provide him with a more wide-ranging remit. If we do not do that, I cannot help but feel that we may have to address the matter again in the not too distant future and to build further on the responsibility of the Children's Commissioner. Let us make sure that we get it right this time.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to have caught your eye in this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Listening to some Labour Members, one would think that Conservative Members were not

  283
  concerned about the nurture and well-being of children. It is absolutely ludicrous for anyone to suggest that any right hon. or hon. Member is not to the nth degree concerned with the welfare of children.
  I think that it is quite wrong for the Government to introduce such a Bill only for Wales and not to extend it to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not just my view. The NSPCC, no less, believes that it is ludicrous for the Government
  to allow children a statutory companion in one part of the United Kingdom, but to deny similar protection to the rest. The NSPCC believes the needs of children do not differ significantly across the United Kingdom and similar posts must be created in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  That was the main tenor of my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
  It is quite wrong that the Bill should be devoted solely to Wales. It is the only Bill this Session that is being introduced solely for Wales, and that is quite wrong. Indeed, the Government's Care Standards Act 2000 made provision for a children's rights director for England. The role of the commissioner for Wales is purely to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children "ordinarily resident in Wales". No doubt, the Bill's Standing Committee will want to examine closely the meaning of that phrase.
  The measure gives rise to a load of conundrums on the protection of Welsh children. We all know of tragic accidents that have occurred when children have been on school trips—for example, canoeing on rivers or sailing at sea. Let us suppose that a group of children from Wales undertook such a venture jointly with English children, organised solely by an English agency, and a tragedy occurred. Would the Children's Commissioner for Wales have a remit in that situation? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will be able to say something about such conundrums when he sums up the debate.
  Mr. Hayes: Earlier in the debate, I received some agreement from Labour Members when I repeatedly made the point that the precise scope of the commissioner's responsibilities has yet to be clarified—I will not say that it is ill-defined. For example, a child may have one Welsh and one English parent; the parents may be separated and live close to the border, so the child spends time in England and in Wales. We need much greater clarity about the commissioner's responsibilities in such situations.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but I do not want to continue in that vein. The message is clear. If the Bill covered England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, such conundrums would not exist. I have no doubt that, when we are returned to power after the next general election—[Interruption.]—we shall address that problem and we shall extend the powers of the Bill to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend allow me to continue for a few moments? I want to develop an important theme, but I assure him that I will give way to him.
  284
  My right hon. and hon. Friends were right to table the reasoned amendment because there is a serious problem with the Bill. We all want increased powers for the commissioner to deal with children in care; we can all think of terrible examples of the abuse of such children. Labour Members may scoff at some of my remarks, but I had the misfortune to be in an area where there was one of the worst cases of child abuse in the history of this country—that of Fred and Rosemary West. A dozen or more children endured terrible torture and mutilation, after which many of them were killed.
  I have spoken at length to the authorities in Gloucestershire. My remarks do not apply in any way to the present employees of Gloucestershire social services or to any other agencies in the county because those events mainly took place in the 1970s and 1980s. However, in private, they all agree that at that time—as a little rural authority—Gloucestershire was not equipped to deal with that scale of child abuse.
  If a children's commissioner had been in place at that time, he would have been able to disseminate best practice throughout the United Kingdom and would have required its adoption by ever local authority. If Gloucestershire had exercised best practice at that time, those terrible abuses would not have a happened and some of the children who suffered and were killed would be alive today.
  Our purpose is to look after the interests of our constituents. I never want such abuse to happen again to any of my constituents or to those of any hon. Member, so I think that it is shocking that, tomorrow, the Government are allowing an entire day's debate on foxhunting while children in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland ire unprotected. That is quite unacceptable and the Government should consider the matter carefully.
  Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an inevitable consequence of considering the component parts of the United kingdom separately, as a result of the Government's unbalanced constitutional reform? I do not want to over-dramatise, but if the price of that is the consequences that he has described, I fear—although in electoral terms, fear is perhaps not the right word to use—that the people of Britain will judge the Government harshly.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Not only on that issue but on a number of others, the people of Britain—in not many weeks' time, I suspect—will judge the Government on what they have achieved for this country. The people have paid the tax, but they are not getting the service that goes with it.
  Mr. Hayes: I have heard that somewhere before.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend must have seen some advertisements around the place; I cannot imagine where.
  Mr. Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, although I am not sure whether he has been present throughout proceedings on the Bill.

  285
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Neither have you."] That is true, but I had urgent business in Committee, and it is impossible to be in two places at once.
  Mr. Edwards rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will give way in a minute, when I have developed this part of my speech.
  I have another concern about the Bill, which I know is also central to the concerns of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench; it is another reason why our reasoned amendment was moved today. We welcome increased powers for the Children's Commissioner over children in care, but we are worried by the fact that his role is so wide, because we do not wish him to supplant the natural role of parents.
  It is natural that parents should have differing views on how to bring children up. That is part of the culture of tolerance, liberation and freedom in this country. Provided that parents do not break the law, we accept the idea that there will be different emphases. We may not always agree with the way in which some parents bring up their children. Indeed, there is a distinct argument to be had about that. Some of the parents of the so-called enlightened 1960s are very deficient in the way in which they have brought up their children. That is a different issue, however. Within the law, parents have the right to bring up their children in different ways.
  It would be unacceptable to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and me if the commissioner started to supplant the role of parents and interfere with the natural bonds within a close family.
  Mr. Edwards: I think that I was following the hon. Gentleman's argument when he suggested that if there had been a commissioner in England, the rights of children might have been safeguarded— even, perhaps, in Gloucestershire. Will he therefore tell us whether his party went into the general election committed to having a commissioner for England and Wales, and whether it will go into the next general election committed to having a commissioner for England?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully to my speech, instead of chatting to his hon. Friends, he would have heard me say that I personally was strongly in favour of a Children's Commissioner for England— but with the remit and role that I have described.
  Mr. Edwards: What about your party?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have no idea, and I am not in a position to commit my party. I am not on the Front Bench for this subject, and I have no remit to speak for my party. However, it is my personal wish—I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would say the same—that we should have a Children's Commissioner for the whole United Kingdom. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is nodding. As I said before, I am certain that after the election, when our party is elected, it will wish to revisit this problem.
  I do not like praying in aid the European Court of Human Rights, because I do not like it supplanting the law of this country.
  286
  If a Government of whichever colour do something that I believe to be wrong, I shall say so. I believe that the Government are doing something wrong tonight and that children in England deserve the protection provided by the Bill. It may be difficult for the Secretary of State to sign the declaration that the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 because it will not apply to the whole United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will consider the fact that citizens of England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, who are aggrieved by the fact that their children will not be protected under the Bill, may be able to take their grievance to the European Court of Human Rights, and their cases may succeed.
  I want to make another important point. Many of the Government's Bills usually involve a substantial financial cost implication, but I understand that the entire cost of implementing the Bill will be only £300,000. If it will cost only £300,000 to protect the children of Wales, it seems immoral not to implement similar provisions in the whole United Kingdom. I hope that, if the Government are to comply with the long title, they will accede in Committee to the Opposition's request and extend the power to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I therefore think that, despite what many Labour Members have said, my hon. Friends were right to table the reasoned amendment, which clearly sets out where the Bill's deficiencies lie. There are some major deficiencies, and I hope that the Government will remedy them.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: We have had a fascinating debate, if only because most Members—certainly, those speaking from the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Benches—have criticised the Opposition for tabling a reasoned amendment, but have then supported the thrust of that amendment. I shall deal with those contributions in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) opened the debate for the Conservative party and was consistent and positive in supporting the concept of having a Children's Commissioner. If we go back a few months to the consideration of the Care Standards Act 2000, my colleagues supported the provisions that established the Children's Commissioner for Wales, but we questioned the lack of an equivalent provision for England. Therein lies part of the problem, and our reasoned amendment highlights what we consider to be two defects in the Bill.
  The first defect, with which I shall deal in a moment, is the lack of clarity in distinguishing between the rights and responsibilities of parents and those of the Children's Commissioner. The second defect arises from the devolution settlement. Those public bodies in Wales that fall within the scope of the Bill are listed in the schedules. However, the Government of Wales Act 1998 did not create a world in which all child abuse would be carried out only by institutions subject to the supervision of the National Assembly for Wales while those who administer other public bodies would be sanctified and, by statute, become no threat to children's rights. That is clearly nonsense. I refer to those in the immigration service, the Prison Service, the police or the Army cadet force, to name just a few of the many public bodies that operate in Wales but are not covered by the Bill.
  Such nonsense would not exist if we had a children's rights commissioner for England and Wales or the whole United Kingdom; or if we were to recognise in this limited

  287
  Bill—it is limited to Wales—that public bodies in Wales are devolved and non-devolved and that the commissioner could be responsible not only to the Assembly for its functions, but to the House for non-devolved matters.
  We must improve the Bill. Conservatives in Wales and in the House want to do that, and that is entirely consistent with what has been said in the Assembly by Members of all parties who want the commissioner's remit to extend not only to public bodies that fall within the scope of the Assembly but to those that fall within the scope of this House.
  We must not lose the plot. The Waterhouse report was about children in care, and the primary responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales must be children in care and children at risk. He has to get that right, and then we can look to him to be a key advocate in all other areas of public administration, whether they fall within the scope of the Assembly or of UK Government Departments.
  I turn now to hon. Members' contributions to this fascinating debate. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the 20 inquiries and their recommendations, and made an interesting point about case studies of young people in custody in Wales who would fall within the scope of the commissioner. He referred also to young people in custody outside Wales, and questioned whether the commissioner's remit would include them.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) failed to understand what lies behind our reasoned amendment and went on to make a speech that seemed to support what we say in the amendment. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) referred to a number of tragic cases of children in care.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) spoke of the Utting report and some of the harrowing cases with which it dealt. He expressed a well-founded and balanced view. He said that we should see how effective existing legislation is before extending it. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do that today. Under pressure from the Assembly, the Government, having failed to get things right the first time in the Care Standards Act 2000, have used their powers to seek to improve that Act. They have put before us a Bill that we must consider with the aim of making the Children's Commissioner for Wales a more effective vehicle for protecting children's rights.
  Mr. Dawson: Given the reasoned amendment and the concerns expressed about the commissioner's involvement within families, is it not specious nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Government about the scale of the Bill?
  Mr. Walter: Not at all. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I shall refer to his speech in a moment.
  We are concerned that the right balance should be struck between the responsibilities of parents and the family and the responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner. We will develop that argument in Committee.
  288
  May I return to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, who highlighted cross-border problems, which will arise from those functions that have not been devolved? Those problems are why we shall press our amendment to the vote. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) was rather confused about our amendment and divisions in her own party. As I pointed out to her in a n intervention, a National Assembly Committee asked for the creation of a children's commissioner with much greater powers—including powers over non-devolved areas—and talked about negotiating on that with the Government. Clearly, the Assembly failed in those negotiations to get the remit of the commissioner extended to those areas.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) traced his support for the post back to 1993, and is to be congratulated on that. He felt that we should not enact the Bill too quickly, without proper scrutiny. We shall talk about proper scrutiny in the following debate on the programme motion, which deals with the Committee stage of the Bill. It is right that, on this occasion, we should make sure that the Children's Commissioner for Wales is vested with the powers that are necessary to carry out the job. This will be the second bite at the cherry, as we try to get it right. We do not want a third bite, which is why we shall scrutinise the Bill in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) pointed out that the Bill has far too many loose ends. He said that there are inadequacies that we have to correct. He emphasised the fact that we must strike the right balance between the family and the commissioner.
  The hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) again questioned the commissioner's powers outside Wales. How will the commissioner exert his powers and role on children who are ordinarily resident in Wales but, none the less, are subject to, or are in, care outside the Principality? We shall continue to explore that valid point in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) looked at the extension of powers. He mentioned the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and called for a holistic approach—which, of course, is a typical Liberal Democrat phrase. We are urged to have a holistic approach involving one thing on the one the hand and something else on the other.
  Mr. Öpik: For the hon. Gentleman's information, the word holistic was suggested to me by Save the Children.
  Mr. Walter: Right. I am sure that phrase will appear in the next Liberal Democrat manifesto.
  As for the contribution of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wynn (Mr. Dawson), his support for the concept of a commissioner is well known and much appreciated in the House. Quite rightly, one of my colleagues asked why, if the measure that we support for Wales is so good, n there not one for England? The hon. Gentleman is about to re-introduce a private Member's Bill, to which the Government could give time; it would extend the provision s of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill to England.
  The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) rather lost the plot initially but, towards the end of his speech, came back to the basic thrust of his argument. I look forward to him joining us in the Lobby tonight.

  289
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) made rather a worthy contribution on the partnership between the Assembly and Parliament. Such a partnership is between the Assembly and all of Parliament, not just the Government. Parliament is here—it represents all shades of opinion throughout the United Kingdom and I believe that if the Assembly is to strike a partnership, it should be a cross-party one. However, the hon. Gentleman made a telling comment about the commissioner having a focused role, which returns us to my point about not letting the commissioner lose the plot. We are discussing primarily children in care and children at risk.
  The contribution of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) was unique in its lack of criticism of our amendment. It dealt with some serious reservations and I look forward to receiving his support in the Lobby.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made a most useful contribution dealing with the absence of any equivalent post in England. He made a most passionate speech about child abuse in Gloucestershire, and sought a commissioner for England who could deal with those matters.
  Members on both sides of the House seemed to think that there was some virtue in displaying manifesto commitments. It was suggested in an intervention that we had no manifesto commitment in 1997 to introduce a Children's Commissioner. The Labour party had no such manifesto commitment either.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to be corrected when he is wrong. The Labour party in Wales had a manifesto commitment to introduce a commissioner for Wales.
  Mr. Walter: I shall stand corrected if necessary, but I think that the Labour party in Wales had such a commitment in the 1999 Welsh Assembly manifesto, not in the 1997 general election manifesto for Westminster.
  The Government, in evidence to the Health Committee in January 1998, said that they were considering the matter as part of a response to the UN committee on compliance with the convention on the rights of the child. The report of the Health Committee, of which I was a member, was more definite. We argued that it was right for the United Kingdom to follow the example of a number of other western countries by creating the post of a children's rights commissioner. We proposed a commissioner who would have the a duty to promote awareness of the rights of the child, highlight ways in which present and proposed policy failed those rights in practice, conduct formal investigations where breaches of children's rights were considered to have taken place, seek to ensure that children had an effective means of redress when their rights were disregarded and carry out and commission research relevant to safeguarding children's rights. The Health Committee concluded:
  We recommend that there should be a Children's Rights Commissioner within the UK …
  The Conservative party here at Westminster and in Cardiff bay believes that it is appropriate that a Children's Commissioner should look after those children in the care of local authorities and other public bodies. However, we do not believe that the Bill is specific enough about the powers of the commissioner. As a result, we have tabled our reasoned amendment and in Committee will continue to seek to improve the Bill.
  290
  The Opposition have specific concerns about protecting the role of the family and of parents. The Bill will give the commissioner a wide remit and, as such, may allow him to supplant the role of the parent. We believe that that would be wrong, and I have already raised that concern with the Government. The Secretary of State will recall that in December I asked him where the dividing line was between the role of the commissioner and of the parent.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walter: No. I have only a few minutes because I want to allow the Minister to make his winding-up speech.
  The Secretary of State's reply was not reassuring. He said:
  I do not believe that there is any dividing line as such … I believe that the appointment does not supplant, but enhances the role of the family …—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 624.]
  We believe that parents should always be given the first opportunity to speak up for their children. We have stated that, and we will oppose any measure that allows the commissioner to intervene unnecessarily in the family unit or take over the role of the parent.
  We also have concerns that the role of the commissioner is confused. For example, he has not been given jurisdiction over many areas in which children may come to harm. By contrast, the commissioner has been given a role in schools, where teachers already play a vital part in protecting the welfare of their pupils. The NSPCC in Wales has stated that the Bill falls far short of the Assembly's vision.
  The Children's Commissioner is an independent post funded by the National Assembly. However, the legislation makes no provision for the commissioner to be made accountable to Parliament. We believe in an effective Children's Commissioner: a commissioner who does not supplant the parent's role and who has the confidence of parents, whose role extends to all public bodies, and whose role could apply equally in England as it does in Wales.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): We have had an interesting and considered debate, and Members have expressed strong views. It has also been a thoughtful debate. I am replying to the debate not only as a Minister, but as a north Wales Member of Parliament, some of whose constituents have suffered child abuse or have been involved in the north Wales child abuse scandal. Like my hon. Friends from north Wales, I recognise the original concerns that caused the Waterhouse report to be commissioned by the current leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), and I give him credit for that.
  I have listened to the debate, and I shall certainly read the report tomorrow. I hope that we will shortly have a useful discussion in Committee on some of the issues that have been raised. However, I shall try to respond to some of the key points. Most of the comments made, even those made by Opposition Front Benchers, show that the Bill is

  291
  widely welcomed in the House, so I regret the Conservative party's reasoned amendment. I shall touch on it briefly, because it is important to consider the issues.
  The amendment says:
  That this House declines to give a Second reading to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
  I recognise what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and other right hon. and hon. Members have said, but the amendment says something about the condition of today's Conservative party, which is willing to oppose this measure. Let us make no mistake: if I were to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join the hon. Member for Ribble Valley in the Lobby to vote for his reasoned amendment, there would be no Committee stage, because there would be no Bill as the House would have declined to give it a Second Reading.
  With due respect to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) and the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), it is a sad exposé of the state of the Conservative party that it fell to the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), to be the only Conservative Back Bencher to speak in support of his Front-Bench team. That says something about the state of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman knows that we tabled our reasoned amendment because we want the Bill to be strengthened. Like some Labour Members and Members of other Opposition parties, we want the powers of the Children's Commissioner to be strengthened and replicated in England when the Bill goes into Committee—as it will. The reasoned amendment has given us the opportunity to put that proposition.
  Mr. Hanson: When the hon. Gentleman wakes up in the morning and reads the headlines in the papers, and when he sees what the Conservative party in Wales has said about his amendment, he will, on reflection, recognise that he has made a catastrophic error. If I invited my right hon. and hon. Friends to join him in the Lobby, there would be no Bill. He knows it, and I know it.
  Whatever the hon. Gentleman has said—I accept the spirit in which he said it—the fact of the matter is that his amendment states:
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Has my hon. Friend received any indication, perhaps through the usual channels, that the official Opposition will not press to a vote the amendment that they say they do not agree with?
  Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I was going to plead with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley to withdraw the amendment because we will certainly discuss the issues that it raises in Committee. He knows we can do that, and it would allow us to progress on the basis of having a consensus on children in Wales so that we secure a better deal for them. I invite him to
  292
  consider that. The shadow Leader of the House is present. Perhaps he could talk to her and the Chief Whip about not pushing the amendment to a vote.
  Mr. Evans: Is the Minister saying that the Bill is deficient and that our reasoned amendment to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner in Wales is right?
  Mr. Hanson: It would be a strange Minister who supported a Bill that he believed to be deficient. The issues that have been raised can be considered and discussed in Committee, but the amendment declines to give the Bill a Second Reading. The leader of the Conservative party in the National Assembly for Wales has said that the amendment appals him.
  However, let us move on. The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to withdraw the amendment, but instead he will ask his hon. Friends to vote for it. We will see how many of them agree with it and I shall look at the Division list tomorrow to see whether the right hon. Member for Fareham and the hon. Member for Wycombe joined him in the Division Lobby.
  The Bill is a superb example of devolution working at its best.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hanson: No, we have to make progress.
  Many hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies made fine contributions. They supported the establishment of the Children's Commissioner and the extension of his remit. I, like my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), have praised the voluntary sector for its contribution to the Bill.
  The Bill will give effect to extending the powers of the Children's Commissioner. As my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said, the Bill's principal aims are to strengthen the exercising of rights by the Children's Commissioner to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
  The Bill will give additional powers to support functions in devolved matters that are covered by the National Assembly. Those are quite extensive and a range of issues, including health and education, will be covered. They are important additions to the commissioner's role. I very much agree with what my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central and for Bridgend said: we should consider the issues, not as a panacea for tackling child abuse at the end of the road, but as a way in which to strengthen and support the Bill.
  I believe that all hon. Members who spoke welcomed the summary of the Bill's effects on improving the conditions and support for children in Wales and elsewhere. However, some important issues have been raised, which I want to cover in detail.
  The key issue—jurisdiction over non-devolved issues—was raised by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley, for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and

  293
  for Brecon and Radnorshire and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Gower (Mr. Caton). The commissioner and his office will be part of the Assembly's strategy for listening to children and ensuring that their voices are heard. It is not consistent with the devolution settlement—I hope hon. Members accept this—for the commissioner's jurisdiction to extend to United Kingdom Departments. Although he will be limited to reviewing the exercise of Assembly functions or functions of the public bodies listed in the new schedules, that does not mean that he will be debarred from commenting on other matters, such as youth justice and other issues that hon. Members have raised.
  The commissioner will have powers to exercise functions that are incidental to his core functions, and he can bring those to the attention of relevant Departments. There is no question of him being gagged on issues that are outside his jurisdiction. The Bill would not give him substantive functions in non-devolved areas, nor would he have a formal power to review, report or require information. However, I believe strongly that Departments would react positively, given the commissioner's profile, on issues that he brought to the attention of the Government. The commissioner will report to the National Assembly for Wales, so he will be able to comment on non-devolved matters in his report, and the Assembly's framework means that it will be able to make representations about those issues to the Government.
  The hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South, for Gower and for Lancaster and Wyre and many others referred to the commissioner having responsibility under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. As hon. Members will be aware, the convention is not part of domestic law and I do not consider it appropriate in primary legislation to link the commissioner's principal aim of safeguarding and promoting the rights of children specifically to the convention. However, the Assembly has taken the convention into account in designing the job description and the advertisement for the post and the commissioner will have regard to the UN convention in exercising his functions. Again, we can explore these issues in Committee. Although the convention is not on the face of the Bill, its spirit is reflected by it.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North for the work that she has undertaken in the House to support the establishment of the commissioner. She mentioned the issue of commenting on the decisions of courts and tribunals. Although the commissioner may receive representations about such decisions, it is not appropriate for him to comment on them while the issues are before the courts. Obviously, once a decision has been taken, he has the right and responsibility to bring to the Assembly's attention any issues that he feels are important.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister consider in Committee whether it will be appropriate for the commissioner to assist a child financially when a case is taken to a tribunal and an important point of principle is at stake?
  Mr. Hanson: I shall certainly reflect on that point in Committee. The commissioner's budget will be limited—it will be £800,000, which answers a point made by the
  294
  right hon. Member for Fareham—and it is within the commissioner's jurisdiction to determine how he spends it on his role and responsibilities.
  The right hon. Member for Fareham mentioned primary legislation. It is not within the commissioner's statutory remit to be able to influence and direct primary legislation; that is a matter for the House, which is why I am pleased that the Bill is before us. However, the commissioner will be able to use his judgment about which issues to express his view upon. He will be free to express his view on those issues accordingly, and I hope that the budget of £800,000 will assist him to do that.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to court cases. The commissioner is not an alternative to the courts, but he has a clear separate role as a children's champion. He will therefore not be able to inquire formally into, or report on, any matter that is the subject of legal proceedings or has been determined by a court or tribunal. However, that will not prevent him from making informal comments on the outcome of court cases or considering such issues.
  Interest and concern have been expressed about the commissioner's role for children who live in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. North mentioned asylum-seeking children, and the key test is whether children in Wales receive regulated services. An asylum-seeking child who receives such services will fall under the commissioner's scope if he lives in Wales. That is set out in section 78(1) of the Care Standards Act 2000, which is to be amended by this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred to the commissioner's jurisdiction over services provided in England for children who live in Wales. It is important that we recognise that the Bill relates to services received, so if a person lives in Wales, is sponsored by an authority outside Wales and receives a service from it, he will fall within the commissioner's potential jurisdiction. It is important to consider the context, and we shall have an opportunity to return to all the issues when we debate the Bill in Committee.
  Much has been said about support for families. The reasoned amendment invites us to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading for several reasons, one of which is
  because it fails to assert the importance of the family in protecting and nurturing children …
  The hon. Member for Wycombe was among those who mentioned support for the family. The role of the Children's Commissioner is not incompatible with support for the family. People involved in families, sadly, occasionally commit abuse, and abuse may be rife in certain families. It is not incompatible to have a Children's Commissioner who examines regulated services as well as family issues.
  It is strange to be asked to decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill because of its lack of support for the family, when the Government have introduced the working families tax credit, given record increases in child benefit, extended maternity leave and introduced the right to parental leave and the new children's tax credit. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley—in addition to making a big mistake in declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill—has also failed to recognise the support that the Government have given to the family. The welcome that the measure has

  295
  had from Children in Wales, the NSPCC and a range of children's voluntary organisations illustrates their support for the Government's proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy asked whether we could extend the scope of the Bill to cover adults with severe learning disabilities. I recognise her concerns, her circumstances and those of many of our constituents. It would not be appropriate for the commissioner to concentrate on adults with learning disabilities because he will be a children's and young person's commissioner. However, he will be able to consider how such individuals need to be protected when they are children, and what steps need to be taken to support their progress to adult life.
  The possibility of a children's commissioner for England was raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and the hon. Member for Cotswold, who again found himself the only hon. Member speaking in support of his Front Bench. The Bill illustrates the success of devolution, and the whole point of devolution is that different parts of the United Kingdom should be able to find solutions to their own problems.
  The National Assembly has worked up detailed proposals for the Children's Commissioner, and I pay tribute to Jane Hutt and her team in the Assembly, including the many officials who have worked on them. The Commissioner will undertake the task of listening to children, promoting their interests and ensuring that they have a voice for their grievances. The Bill fulfils a Labour manifesto commitment made during the Assembly elections of 1999.
  I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the lack of a children's commissioner in England and Scotland. The Government will consider carefully the Welsh experience before deciding whether having a commissioner for children in England would add value.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley had the cheek to raise those issues, because I do not recall the Conservatives introducing proposals for a Children's Commissioner once in all their 18 years. In fact, during the passage of a Bill in 1993 the Conservatives voted down a Labour amendment to introduce children's commissioners in Wales, so let us not have the cant and hypocrisy of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley saying, "We would have done it." They did not do so when they had the opportunity.
  The Bill offers an opportunity to ensure that the lessons of Waterhouse are learned, that we protect children and young people in the future and that we introduce in Wales a positive model for child protection. I have lived with the north Wales child abuse inquiry in constituency terms, and seen the effects of it. We are doing all that we can to support the commissioner. I ask the hon. Member for Ribble Valley not to press the amendment to a vote, and not to vote against the Bill. I ask him to support the Government.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 139, Noes 339.

  Division No. 57]

  [11.2 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cann, Jamie

  Banks, Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barron, Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Battle, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chaytor, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clapham, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Berry, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clelland, David

  Borrow, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Breed, Colin

  Cohen, Harry

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Coleman, Iain

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Colman, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Corbett, Robin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Cotter, Brian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cousins, Jim

  Burstow, Paul

  Cox, Tom

  311

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Joyce, Eric

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

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kidney, David

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Doran, Frank

  Lammy, David

  Drew, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lepper, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Levitt, Tom

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Livsey, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lock, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Follett, Barbara

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Foulkes, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McDonnell, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gidley, Sandra

  McNulty, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  MacShane, Denis

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Goggins, Paul

  McWalter, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Maxton, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hancock, Mike

  Merron, Gillian

  Hanson, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Mitchell, Austin

  Healey, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hendrick, Mark

  Moore, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heppell, John

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

  Hesford, Stephen

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate

  Mullin, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Norris, Dan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hurst, Alan

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jamieson, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  312

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pound, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Rendel, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark

  Rogers, Allan

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salter, Martin

  Tyler, Paul

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tynan, Bill

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Webb, Steve

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Welsh, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  White, Brian

  Singh, Marsha

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Woodward, Shaun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wray, James

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Beggs, Roy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Bercow, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Luff, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brady, Graham

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chope, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Collins, Tim

  Ruffley, David

  Cran, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Day, Stephen

  Soames, Nicholas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Evans, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Flight Howard

  Steen, Anthony

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gill, Christopher

  Syms, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hammond, Philip

  Thompson, William

  Hayes, John

  Townend, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Trend, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Tyrie, Andrew

  313

  Walter, Robert

  Wilshire David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. James Gray.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill (Programme)
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Hanson: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill:—

  Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill (Programme)

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 1st February.

    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

    This is an important Bill for Wales, and we have had a full debate on it. It contains wide-ranging powers to promote the interests and welfare of children in Wales.
    Mr. David Wilshire: I note the date on which proceedings in the Committee must finish. When does the Minister expect its first sitting to take place?
    Mr. Hanson: I understand that we hope it will take place early next week.
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest, given that we have engaged in a seven-hour debate on the Bill for which he was not present. Let us put that aside for a moment, however.
    As I have said, the Bill is important. It gives the Welsh Assembly powers, and it is the first Bill relating exclusively to Wales since the House of Commons passed devolution legislation. Our wide-ranging debate tonight recognised those facts.
    The motion proposes that the Committee stage conclude on 1 February. I think that that allows plenty of time for discussion of the Bill, which contains only eight clauses and one schedule. It involves important points of principle, which have been discussed to some extent today. No doubt Members will be keen to discuss them further during later stages of the Bill's passage.
    I think that the motion allows enough time for detailed debate on the clauses. I anticipate the possibility of five sittings, but the motion allows time for more if they are needed. That is a matter for the Opposition.
    Today's debate has given us a flavour of some of the key subjects for debate, which I know will be discussed in detail in Committee. One of the main advantages of timetabling is that it allows us to concentrate on important issues. I commend the motion to the House.
    10.19 pm
    Mr. Evans: I am sure that it will not go unnoticed that, having failed to make our reasoned amendment, we give the Bill our full support. However, we shall seek in Committee to amend the Bill along the lines of our reasoned amendment. In his reply to the previous debate, and after listening to concerns expressed by Labour and by Conservative and other Opposition Members, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said that he would carefully consider the amendments that we are proposing. [Interruption.] We shall have a chance to debate those amendments in Committee.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are so many private conversations in the Chamber that it is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    301
    It is significant that the Under-Secretary admitted that he felt that the pleas made in the debate by various right hon. and hon. Members should be carefully considered and debated in Committee. I look forward to that Committee.
    Mr. John Bercow: Can my hon. Friend tell us how many sittings he understands it is proposed that the Committee shall have in considering the Bill's relatively few clauses? Is he aware how many hours it is proposed should be allocated for consideration of the Bill? If so, will he divulge the details?
    Mr. Evans: In initial discussions, it was said that there might be four or five sittings. However, as we have just heard from the Under-Secretary, there might be more sittings, depending on the number of amendments tabled. It is unclear how many hours we shall have at our disposal to amend the Bill. However, as the motion states, the Committee's consideration of the Bill should be concluded no later than Thursday 1 February.
    As Labour Members know, the Opposition do not agree with programming or guillotining Standing Committees' consideration of Bills. We therefore oppose the motion on that basis alone. We are opposed also to the very fact that discussions on programming the Committee's consideration will be held in a hybrid Committee that deliberates in private and without a record of votes or proceedings. It was the Government who talked about transparency and wanted transparency of government; yet they want to conduct such proceedings in a Committee that they themselves created.
    Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that, as I understand it, no minutes will be taken of the Programming Sub-Committee's sittings, would it be open to any hon. Member serving on the Standing Committee who happened to be present to take his own minutes and publish them after the event?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a private meeting of a Select Committee, and Select Committee procedure applies.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Does that mean—I seek your clarification—that any hon. Member may attend the sittings?
    Mr. Speaker: That is the normal practice of Select Committees, and, as I said, Select Committee procedure applies.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been a member of various Select Committees, and I know that transcripts are made of Select Committee proceedings. Would it not help our proceedings if transcripts were made of the proceedings in question, so that we can discover precisely what happened?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking questions that he could be asking the Minister in the debate. Perhaps he should not pursue the matter now, as that is taking us beyond the scope of the debate.
    Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that we could take these matters forward slightly if we had a proper
    302
    transcript? At least then we would know what had happened? Do the official Opposition agree that we should have a transcript of those meetings?
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I was just about to make the plea that those meetings should be open. If the Government insist that they are private meetings, there should not only be a transcript so that there are no interpretations afterwards, but a record of any votes. I ask the Government to think very carefully before implementing this programming motion.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was not just wallowing in metaphysical abstraction, but making a profoundly relevant and concrete point? In that context, is my hon. Friend aware that the reason it is so relevant and concrete is that only last week, as a result of the absence of a voting account or even the published minutes of the Programming Sub-Committee, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and I subsequently had a great argument about what had or had not been said. Neither of us could be proved right or wrong precisely because of a lacuna in the proceedings.
    Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to make that point. If there were transcripts of the meetings, all hon. Members could read the deliberations and find out how the Programming Sub-Committee had decided how many minutes should be allocated to debating each clause and amendment. As in all such matters, there are leaks and two members of the Committee might produce different versions of why it had reached a procedural decision.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is there any need for such minutes? The Government constantly told us that it was up to the Opposition to decide what was debated, when and for how long. That was the advantage of the new procedure for us. We do not need to know what they would say had taken place; we need merely to publish our version as, according to them, that is what will count.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend knows that there is such a thing as spinning, and the Government have been doing it all evening. They have been spinning the procedure on the Bill from start to finish, and no doubt that will continue in the Sub-Committee. They could produce a different interpretation of what they heard in the sub-committee. It might be a genuine misinterpretation or it might simply be spin, which unfortunately happens too often in this place.
    Mr. Wilshire: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend and I understand why he is concerned that we should have some details of what is decided. If I understand him correctly—perhaps he will put me right if I am not following his argument—we are being invited to vote on a programming motion, but the details will be worked out subsequently. Is that what he is saying? If so, how can he give the Opposition any guidance from the Front Bench on whether the Government are being

    303
    sensible, or whether, as usual, they are trying to shuffle things out of here and work out afterwards and behind closed doors what suits them? Is he telling me that I am being asked to vote for an almost corrupt way of doing things? Is that what he is asking me to do?
    Mr. Evans: I certainly would not ask my hon. Friend to do anything of that sort. He is right to say that we do not know, because when the motion has been approved the matter will go to a closed Committee on Thursday, with no record of proceedings or votes.
    The Government Whip is listening attentively. He will be in the Programming Sub-Committee, but I will not know what has been said if I am not there. How can we support the motion when we do not know how much time will be allocated? Various issues were raised on Second Reading, and right hon. and hon. Members may want to discuss them at length in Committee. We are being asked to give the Programming Sub-Committee a blank cheque to decide in secret how much time is allotted to a very important Bill that has our full support.
    Why cannot the sitting be open, so that everyone can hear what is said by Government and Opposition Members and fully understand our positions? Many children's charities are interested in the Bill and have already made representations to us. They may be horrified to find that important matters have been allotted only a short time for consideration. That is wholly wrong. Let us have transparency and allow the charities to make up their own minds about who is giving fair consideration to the Bill.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about charities. Does he agree that charities will think it extraordinary that the very party that pressed, both in opposition and in government, for freedom of information legislation is now saying that it wants closed government, concealed from the public and from those who are interested in this very worthwhile Bill?
    Mr. Evans: Of course. This is not freedom of information, it is freedom for the Government to do what they want and railroad through the legislation in a carefully scheduled and timetabled way, with scant regard for the proper scrutiny that we are here to give.
    To be an effective Opposition, we need sufficient time to scrutinise the legislation properly and consider the suggestions that the children's charities have carefully worked out. Several Government Back Benchers spoke about some of those suggestions. If we do not have enough time to scrutinise amendments, the resulting legislation may be deficient and we will not have done our job properly.
    Several children's charities have made representations to us on the matter. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke passionately during the Second Reading debate; he will want to table amendments—like him, we share some of the concerns expressed by the charities. He said that he wants the measure to be enacted as soon as possible—as do we.
    Of course, we know that there is pressure on Government time; they may want to call a general election—the sooner the better for us; we welcome the
    304
    election as soon as possible. We do not know whether the general election will be called in April, in May or even later. We know that the Government could continue until next year, but it is unlikely that they will want to do so because wheels are failing off their bandwagon and, every week, something new turns up. They will want to go to the polls as quickly as they can.
    That limits the time for our discussion of this legislation. If the Government could indicate when the general election will be held—I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is privy to regular discussions on such matters with the Prime Minister—we could more carefully arrange the timetable ourselves so as to ensure that the Bill is passed; we want it to become an Act.
    The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that he did not want the Bill to proceed with undue haste. I agree. We do not want a quick, shoddy measure that will not do the job that we intend for it. We want an effective measure under which the Children's Commissioner will have the powers that he deems necessary to do a good job in Wales. We all want that, so we must make certain that, in the time allotted for examination of the Bill in Committee, we give due and proper consideration to the amendments that we table.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the date of the general election—even if it were as early as 1 April, if that is a Thursday—to conclude the proceedings of the Standing Committee by Thursday 1 February would be extremely fast? Even if the Standing Committee were to conclude a month later than that, on 1 March, it would still be possible for Third Reading before the end of March, so the measure would still become law before a general election.
    Mr. Evans: Part of the problem is the imposition of artificial dates and the pushing through of amendments not only from the Conservatives and other Opposition parties—so—called Opposition, in the case of the Liberal Democrat party—but from Labour Members. We have heard impassioned pleas for the extension of the powers of the Children's Commissioner beyond the remit of the Welsh Assembly, for example.
    The NSPCC has issued a parliamentary briefing in which it welcomes
    the introduction of the Bill to allow a Children's Commissioner for Wales. NSPCC believes that the Bill could be significantly improved by a series of uncontroversial amendments. These amendments would assist the Commissioner to put the interests of children first, and act across all policy areas to ensure the best possible outcomes for children.
    I agree with the NSPCC; the amendments are uncontroversial. However, part of what the NSPCC asks for is included in our reasoned amendment, to which the Government took umbrage. How can we accept that the Government will agree to the uncontroversial amendments, in which we and some Government Back Benchers believe, without proper argument from members of that Committee?
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend's remarks have been predicated on the fact that only the Government and Opposition Front Benchers will want to contribute to the Committee. Under the timetable that we are discussing, there is no excuse for Government Back

    305
    Benchers not to undertake their duty as Members of this place and to contribute to the debate on exactly the same basis as members of the Committee. They will, of course, form a majority, and time should be allowed for them to make a proper contribution, based on all the points that they wish to make.
    Mr. Evans: I shall have more discussions, such as those that I had today, with a number of children's charities, and I know that those charities will also talk to Government Members. That is what Standing Committees are all about; indeed, it is what Parliament is all about—holding the Executive to account. Guillotines are always thought of as ways of shutting up Opposition Members, but they also restrict the contributions that Government Members can make on important legislation and on issues that affect their constituencies.
    That worries me. Effective Back Benchers do not necessarily have to be members of the Opposition; they simply need a mind, a heart, passion, and to believe in something. The fact that they happen to sit on the Government side does not mean that they must check in their brains before they come in through the arch, have nothing to say, sit compliantly behind and nod at whatever the Minister happens to say.
    There is a great onus on Government Back Benchers to pay careful attention to what their Government are doing. We have only to consider the arithmetic of this place to know that if the Government want to force things through, they will get their majority. To change the Government's mind, we need Government Bask Benchers with backbone, to stand up and march through the Lobby with us. We need them to have the time to listen to the representations by pressure groups outside and to present those arguments to Ministers. In Committee, Ministers, too, need the opportunity and the time to respond to the amendments that those Back Benchers table.
    If there is an allotted amount of time, and someone tables an amendment on incorporating the United Nations convention on the rights of the child in the Bill, how do we know how much time will be given to that aspect of the legislation? We know that the National Assembly for Wales wanted the convention to be duly recognised in the Bill, and several Government Members mentioned it on Second Reading. The official Opposition will want to test the Government on the subject, too. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has mentioned the UN convention, as have the Liberal Democrats. The entire House is as one on the matter—apart from Ministers, who say that they are very cautious about incorporating the convention in the Bill.
    How do we know that sufficient time will be given to enable all Members to make their representations to the Minister in Committee, and to allow the Minister to argue cogently why he cannot accept amendments supported by so many Members? The Standing Committee represents the part of our proceedings when the Members who know most about the subject have the opportunity to table amendments, yet we do not know whether the Government will allot sufficient time.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful argument about the legislature's responsibility to hold the Executive to account. However, is he aware that, during approximately 15 hours' debate in the Committee with
    306
    which I am currently involved—this is directly relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making, Madam Deputy Speaker—only one of seven Government Back Benchers has so far made a speech, and a pretty short and ineffectual one at that, and two of them have yet to open their mouths? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Members who serve on that Committee are still trying to work out whether the Labour Members have absolutely nothing to say, or whether they have something to say but have been instructed in no uncertain terms not to say it?
    Mr. Evans: That may well remain a mystery to many hon. Members, although we all have an inkling about exactly how the Government try to squeeze out any independent thought. They welcome the fact that Labour Members say absolutely nothing to interrupt the clear passage of whatever the Government want to happen.
    This is an important Bill. Its title suggests that it will affect Wales only, but during its Second Reading we have seen that several cross-border matters are involved. Children who go from Wales to England will not receive the same protection and care, because England has a children's rights director, not a Children's Commissioner with the enhanced powers that the Bill will provide.
    Mr. Brady: Does my hon. Friend agree that when this United Kingdom Parliament legislates for Wales. Scotland or Northern Ireland—or, perhaps, for England only—we have a special duty to give proper attention to that legislation; and that, as we do not all come from the particular part of the United Kingdom involved, we should give it more time and pay more attention to ensure that we legislate properly?
    Mr. Evans: The Conservative party still believes in a United Kingdom Parliament, representing all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I have said that the Bill is important for Wales, but it goes much wider because of the cross-border matters. As I said earlier this evening, several emerging countries may consider our deliberations. They view ours as the mother of Parliaments and they will consider how we pass legislation. The Bill is vital, and emerging democracies that wish to enter the 21st century and to he viewed as civilised may want to create their own children's commissioner.
    We have not acted in splendid isolation; we have looked at various examples, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Germany. [Interruption.] The National Assembly, the Library and those who are interested in the Bill have been looking at the children's commissioners or ombudsmen that have been created throughout the world. So several other countries will look to Britain when we establish our Children's Commissioner.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the motion.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for saying that, but I am trying to say—perhaps badly—that we must ensure that there is sufficient time in Committee to debate the Bill, not only because we want to get it right, but because it will have an impact far beyond Wales and this country, given that other democracies will consider what we have done.
    Mr. Swayne: I do not wish to make trouble for my hon. Friend, but I may have become confused. He seems

    307
    to be making a powerful argument for the guillotine by suggesting that if we allowed the ordinary Standing Committee procedures to apply, we would draw in the United Nations declaration. He seems to suggest that we can keep it out by pursuing the guillotine. That seems to be a powerful argument for such a guillotine.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend, who is sometimes mischievous, is putting an opposing view. I hear his powerful call to be a member of the Committee that considers the Bill, and that request will be carefully considered.
    I am not saying that the UN convention has universal support in the House, but a number of Labour Members, Conservative Members and Members of other Opposition parties think that it is a good idea and that the Bill would be enhanced by its incorporation. If my hon. Friend is privileged to be a member of the Committee, he may want to put a counter-argument to some of the suggestions that are made. We must make sure that the arguments of all Members, irrespective of their views, can be fleshed out and worked through in the time allotted to us. The fact that my hon. Friend may be in a minority of one does not make him wrong. I remember that when Margaret Thatcher used to go to Europe, she was often in a minority of one, but that made her all the more right—although that may not necessarily be true of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend says that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) sometimes puts an opposing view. My view may be less opposed to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). When other countries, particularly emerging democracies, are looking at our procedures in the House—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my earlier comment. We are straying wide of the motion, which concerns the setting up of a Committee, regardless of what other democracies may or may not do.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point is precisely that. Other democracies, looking at our procedures in the mother of Parliaments, would be disgusted to learn that considerations concerning the setting up of a Committee and the guillotining of its proceedings are held in private and not even minuted. If they were to follow our poor example of having Committees that sit in private, behind closed doors, without their proceedings being minuted—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a very long intervention.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
    I would say that other countries have a lot to learn about the Bill and about how we are trying to protect the welfare of our children, but they have nothing to learn from the procedures that we have introduced in this place.
    Ann Clwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Conservatives were in government
    308
    and at the Welsh Office, they covered up the paedophilia that was going on in Wales and in the Welsh Office—officials were involved—and that for all those years they refused to take any action to protect children in Wales? Are they not guilty of total hypocrisy?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady knows that I have a lot of respect for her, but I am not exactly certain what she is referring to. The Bill arises from the Waterhouse inquiry, which was set up by the leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), when he was Secretary of State for Wales. That is relevant to our discussion.
    I have a final plea to make to Ministers. We have a briefing document from a former Member of Parliament, Gareth Wardell, who is highly respected by Members on both sides of the House. He has made several representations on areas of the Bill that he believes could be improved, including the UN convention, which I have already mentioned: areas where the commissioner ought to have direct contact with children; cross-border areas, which are vital; and non-devolved areas. That is only a small number of the areas on which Gareth Wardell and his charity have concerns. As I said, several other children's charities have already made representations, many along similar lines to Mr. Wardell's.
    We are asking for an opportunity to debate and discuss those issues properly. Sidelining the whole thing to a Committee in secret so that it can cobble together a systematic guillotining of the Bill would not be in the Bill's best interests. Quite frankly, we would not end up ensuring that the Bill will give Wales the Children's Commissioner that we all seek for it. Will the Government reconsider the way in which they are undertaking the guillotine and give the House time to scrutinise the legislation properly?
    10.56 pm
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I should like to look at this matter from the Government's point of view, and shall try to offer a reasonable argument.
    The Government argue that the old Standing Committee procedure did not work. Committees would meet for hundreds of hours, and would spend the first 100 hours on clause 1 and various filibusters. No Government Members, Back Benchers or otherwise, would ever speak and there was not a proper debate. That system did not work very well. I have served on a number of Standing Committees in this Parliament, and in all of them, including those considering big social security Bills, which were highly controversial—indeed, much more so than this Bill—that was not the nature of the debate.
    In Committees in this Parliament on which I have served, Conservative Members have not wasted their time in filibustering hour after hour and making pointless speeches on the first clause of a Bill. In fact, we have come to an agreement with the Government early on and had a good debate. The Government have not guillotined any big Bills in Committees on which I have sat. We have had good debates, which, I accept, have lasted for 100 hours. Why not? Surely, the Opposition's purpose is to scrutinise legislation and have a proper debate. However, that was done by agreement.
    I do not necessarily accept that the old system never worked and that there was a lot of time wasting. I agree that, in previous Parliaments, Labour Members—not

    309
    Conservative Members—decided that they wanted to force a guillotine. They felt that it was politically attractive to be able to go to the general public and say that they had done their job, especially on issues concerning trade union membership and privatisation Bills. They would often spend hour after hour in Committee, debating at inordinate length the early clauses of Bills to ensure that the then Conservative Government were forced to introduce a guillotine.
    I did not see the point of that and am not sure what it achieved from Labour Members' point of view, but it was their decision. I do not think that we have been guilty of that on many occasions. However, such behaviour is a decision for the Opposition. In a democracy, the Government have the right to get their Bills through. They have the majority and, eventually, they will get all their Bills through. The previous Conservative Government got all their Bills through; this Government have got all their Bills through.
    However, the Opposition have one great right—to debate, determine the timetable to a reasonable extent and pick the areas of debate. All Oppositions have done that. I am trying to look at this from the point of view of the Government, who want to create a new system. I should have thought that one purpose of a new system involved getting rid of one-sided debate in Standing Committee, having a programme motion from the beginning and having an end date clearly in view. Because one has an end date, Government and Opposition Members will want to intervene and give regular speeches. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear, when the new system has worked, it has not resulted in that. There is still a certain reticence on the part of Government Back Benchers, so I am not sure what the new system is designed to achieve.
    If Government Back Benchers do not want to speak, that is their decision. Leaving that to one side, if one is going to have such a system, surely it must be based on a certain degree of consensus. The Second Reading debate should be given a day or half a day and the arguments should be listened to. The Government should then consider, during a reasonable delay, how controversial a Bill is and how many amendments are likely to be tabled. The programme motion should then be introduced. The Government should not try to force it through on the same evening as the Second Reading debate.
    Time and again last week, we heard entirely formal comments from Ministers and we heard them again today. The Minister is a fair-minded man, but his was not a lengthy speech on a programme motion saying, "Look, we have had the debate, various comments have been made and it is likely to take a couple of months or even six weeks to consider the Bill. I want to proceed on the basis of consensus and I shall listen to both sides of the argument."
    Mr. Hanson: The programme motion has been agreed by the Opposition.
    Mr. Leigh: I am sorry, but the programme motion has not been agreed by the Opposition and I am sure that we shall vote against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is shaking his head, so the Minister is wrong. The Opposition have not agreed to a system that locks us into finishing consideration by 1 February. That could not be fair.
    Mr. Hanson rose—
    Mr. Leigh: I am trying to be reasonable and I am trying to consider the matter from the Government's point of view.
    The Bill is non-controversial. When Mrs. Thatcher called early elections in June 1983 and in 1987, she had the self-confidence to realise that she may have to re-introduce certain Bills. I agree that allowing the Bill to spend perhaps six weeks in Committee may mean that it will fall foul of a general election. Well, bring it back. The Government should base their programme not on a general election, but on what is right. What is the Bill about? Are we trying to introduce good legislation? The Government should try to reach a reasonable agreement with the Opposition so that they can debate those matters fully and reasonably and table amendments.
    The Speaker has made a point about Programming Sub-Committees. Are they true Select Committees? I have been a member of several Select Committees, which produce transcripts. Private sittings often deal with non-controversial issues, but when—
    It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 67.
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The next debate is about a very serious and important matter. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but there is another motion to deal with. Is that the matter that is so important?
    Mr. Wilshire: Yes. It is an issue about which many hon. Members wish to speak—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the next motion on the Order Paper is not for debate, however important he thinks it is.

    CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER FOR WALES BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Touhig]
    Question agreed to.
    Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The next item for debate is the Education
    314
    (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000, and it is very important. However, the Order Paper states that the Question will be put
    after 1½ hours or at 11.30 pm, whichever is earlier.
    It is now 11.18 pm. Given the interest in the matter, how can we have a serious debate in just 12 minutes? Is there any way, under our procedures, that Parliament can do its proper job and hold a serious debate?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate on the motion must end at 11.30. I shall consider then whether to use my powers to adjourn the debate, rather than put the Question.
    Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as to whether, in the heavily circumscribed period available for debate, it is expected or obligatory that, even if there is not time for Back-Bench contributions, all three Front-Bench contributions will be made and heard.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: My answer to an earlier point of order indicates the way in which I intend to conduct the debate.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it would help the House if you would give your guidance as to whether your judgment will be affected by the length of speeches even in the very brief time available, and whether more than one contribution has been allowed for in that period of time. That would enable, for example, the person who first catches your eye to decide how to structure the debate in order to allow you to make your judgment at the end of the time available.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It would certainly help me make my judgment if we could proceed with the debate.

  Education
  11.20 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: I beg to move,
  That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 3106), dated 21st November 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
  As hon. Members who raised points of order made clear, this is a very important issue indeed. It is sad that we are starting to debate such an important issue at twenty minutes past 11 o'clock because we have spent most of the evening waffling about parliamentary business that could have been carried very quickly. If it had been, that would have enabled us to hold a full one and a half hour debate on this issue.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: It is very sad indeed—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The House must come to order.
  Mr. Willis: Performance-related pay is an important issue, which for the last two years has vexed the minds of some 500,000 teachers throughout England and Wales. When they look at the newspapers tomorrow, or at Hansard, and see that, sadly, Members felt it was far more important to play games on the Opposition Benches than to discuss this important issue, they will draw their own conclusion about who has teachers' interests at heart.
  We have never had an opportunity in the House to discuss performance-related pay, or indeed the Government's Green Paper, published in December 1998, entitled "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change". That Green Paper contained a series of interesting proposals about the future of the teaching profession—proposals that Members on both sides of the House would have enjoyed debating. There was an important proposal to introduce information and communications technology and to make every teacher in the country ICT-literate. Another proposal was to introduce teaching assistants, who have a crucial role in the education delivery service. The changes to initial teacher training were trailed in that document. It had some profound things to say about the way in which the profession would be organised in this new millennium. Perhaps the most interesting issue, to which the Government have come rather late, is that of professional development of the teaching force. Those were all major issues.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: Given the time that is available to me, I am not prepared to give way. I apologise for that.
  Sadly, two years on, the Green Paper, despite the fact that it has not been debated in the House, will be remembered not for the many excellent initiatives that it
  316
  contains, but for the Government's bungled attempts to impose performance-related pay on the teaching profession in England and Wales.
  Miss McIntosh: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Willis: The order that we are considering tonight is the culmination of that bungled and torturous process. Rather than unite the teaching profession around new structures for pay and conditions, the Secretary of State has shown us how it is possible to divide the profession and squander the good will of 500,000 teachers.
  Miss McIntosh: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Willis: In his judgment in the successful court case brought by the National Union of Teachers, Mr. Justice Jackson said that the course adopted by the Secretary of State had bypassed the School Teachers Review Body, Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. He said that if he did not make an order, the court would be allowing contractual provisions to be foisted upon some 400,000 schoolteachers in a manner not authorised by Parliament. That judgment on 14 July last year was a shocking indictment of the way in which the Secretary of State had tried to force through his proposals without debate or proper consideration.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give way.
  Mr. Willis: Imagine if a Conservative Secretary of State had been so judged in the courts—there would have been outrage among Labour Members.
  Mr. Eric Forth: There frequently was.
  Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman says that there was, frequently.
  Mr. Forth: I was there.
  Mr. Willis: Labour Members must recognise that it was a judgment of real significance in terms of the process.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: Yet even with that judgment ringing in the Secretary of State's ears, he sought to deflect the blame, first by blaming the NUT and then his civil servants for the decisions that were taken. Never did the right hon. Gentleman say after that damning court judgment, "I got it wrong and I apologise to the teaching profession."
  Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: What nonsense.

  317
  In the Department's submission to the court, its timetable for the validation of all assessments was not September 1990 or October, but 28 February 2001. That was the date on which the Government expected the threshold payments to be made available to teachers.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: There was never any intention of paying teachers earlier than that. The Minister and the Secretary of State castigated the NUT, saying that teachers were prevented from having their payments in September. That was untrue and a dreadful statement for a Secretary of State to make.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: There was never a threat that the threshold process—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to give way. That is entirely at his discretion.
  Mr. Forth: Disgraceful.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: So is the behaviour in the Chamber.
  Mr. Willis: There was never a threat, despite the protestations of the Minister in a Standing Committee, that the entire process would have to be started again. That was never in question. What was at stake was not the threshold criteria per se—
  Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: The real debate was whether there had been proper consultation on the new arrangements that the Secretary of State was bringing in.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: The key issue goes to the heart of the debate, and it is the principle—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to come to order.
  Mr. Willis: The key issue that is at the heart of performance-related pay, the NUT's court judgment and the motion is that even a benign Secretary of State must be subject to the law as it stands. If we surrender that principle and accept that a Secretary of State is beyond the law and can impose on teachers any conditions that he may wish, we are absolutely lost. That was the principle at the heart of the court's decision.
  Following the decision, the Secretary of State and Department for Education and Employment officials have consulted the professional associations. Positive dialogue has taken place between the Department for Education and Employment and teachers' unions—
  318
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, being of the opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the motion was entered upon, the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the Business, and the debate stood adjourned till tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17(2)(Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).

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

    PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on Audio Recording of Interviews) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
    Question agreed to.

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Motion made,
  That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Betts.]

  Hon. Members: Object.

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

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Better Government for Older People
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important subject of the programme that the Government have set up better to organise government for older people. I am pleased to begin by acknowledging the Government's success and vision in conceiving the series of pilot programmes, which have been in place since 1998. They were held in 28 different areas throughout the United Kingdom. The published evaluation, which was produced in June 2000, clearly demonstrated that they had all made great inroads in and contributions to creative thinking about the way in which central Government, local government, other agencies and non-governmental organisations could take forward policy making and participation by older people in future. I commend the Government on their valuable initiative. We look forward to the outcome that they will announce later this month, after considering the report, which is entitled "All our Futures".
  Warwick university did some useful academic work in evaluating the pilot programmes. The unique set of new partnerships that have been set up during the pilot projects is striking. They involve central Government and local government, and also the voluntary sector and some academics. The strategy that emerges from the evaluation of the 28 pilot projects clearly shows that public service improvements can be achieved by involving older people—people who are over 50—more directly by taking more careful note of their views and recognising the value of their contribution more clearly than in the past.
  It is instructive to note that the pilot projects did not consider only some of the more traditional aspects that concern those in the elderly category, such as health care, housing, money matters and benefits. They also actively considered better policies on, for example, lifelong learning, transport, leisure and volunteering. I was pleased by the Chancellor's important statement last week about the Government's recognition of the role that volunteers can play in future. I entirely endorse that.
  More than 300 organisations were involved in the two-year pilot scheme, and much innovative thinking has gone into their work. Many traditional, watertight Chinese walls and departmental boundaries have constructively been breached. The results show the obvious benefits that accrue from a strategic, United Kingdom-wide approach to the problem. However, as I represent a Scottish constituency, I understand that issues of devolution may be involved for the Scottish Executive and for Wales and Northern Ireland.
  As I said, the inter-ministerial group on older people is expected to be able to respond by the end of the month. I am sure that its main recommendations will concern problems such as the need to root out and confront age discrimination, to engage better with older people generally, to improve policy and decision making, to address the requirements of the age groups that we are considering in a sensitive way, and to take an holistic view of the whole area of policy making.
  Obviously I do not expect the Minister to make any announcements tonight that would upstage or breach the Government's official response, but I hope he will
  320
  consider two or three points that I shall put to him. I intend to make a passing reference to the pilot programme conducted in the town of Hawick—the biggest community in my constituency—and in parts of rural central Berwickshire.
  However excellent the pilot schemes have been locally, I think that if the programme is to succeed generally it will require continuing active central Government support. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to confirm that much tonight.
  I congratulate the programme director, Martin Shreeve, on excellent Cabinet Office support for the pilots conducted in the borders and elsewhere. That level of commitment, and the role played by central Government, must be sustained and enhanced if the programme is to be rolled out successfully throughout the United Kingdom in the near future.
  I suppose that Opposition Members are always saying this to the Government, and Ministers are always saying that things are very difficult because they never have enough money to do everything, but a resource element will be involved in central Government's continuing commitment to the programme. I do not think that it need involve huge amounts of public expenditure, but I do think that a commitment of resources for the continuing future, in the middle to longer term, is essential to a successful national roll-out. The scheme cannot realise its full potential if it is left to local initiatives, however good.
  The scheme needs not only money but a coherent organisational framework, a set-up at national level to which people can relate. It is essential to establish a central partnership agency staffed by specialists, ideally located in the Cabinet Office. All that is vital to the guaranteeing of a continued positive direction, essential co-ordination, the ability to share best practice—which, I think, is one of the features of the 28 pilots that we have observed so far—and the continued promotion of an interdepartmental approach to some of the questions raised by the pilots themselves.

  Ideally, 50 per cent. of any of the infrastructure to be established should be staffed by people who are 50 or older.
  If resources are my first priority, my second is this: the Government cannot safely rely on independent external organisations, or indeed local government—although local government has an important role to play—to establish the infrastructure that is needed to ensure the national implementation of the project.
  As for the third item on my wish list—I do not think that this will be difficult for the Minister—I want central Government to accept fully the responsibility of challenging the out-of-date concepts and stereotypes relating to older people. They have gone a long way towards doing that, but they have much further to go. Older people as a class are no longer poverty-stricken, ailing and dependent, although some obviously are, and their problems need to be addressed urgently as part of the programme. Public perception is important. Policy making, however, has focused too much on ideas such as infirmity and dependency. Such a caricature of older people is no longer relevant.
  I hope that the Government will use all their power and determination to promote a much more positive message that encourages more people over 50 to become involved in lifelong learning and—for the benefit of the

  321
  community—to take employment advice and use the skills and experience that they acquired in their earlier working lives.
  In the borders, we have learned quite a lot more about the difficulties that people have in gaining access to transport that suits their daily needs, in a manner and at the time that suits them. The pilot project in my own constituency was a valuable way of examining some of those problems in far more detail.
  It is true that people are enjoying active lives, retiring much earlier and living longer. A salutary fact to remember is that it will not be long before more than half the population will be 50 or older. I think that the Minister himself might be approaching that very serious stage in life. Sadly, for me, that day has already passed. Therefore, perhaps we both have a personal interest in ensuring that such projects are properly employed.
  In all the work on pilot projects that has been done, the three elements that I have identified stand out. I hope that the proceedings of the inter-ministerial group and anticipated Government announcements result in their being included in the Government's plan.
  I cannot conclude such a debate without paying tribute to those who were responsible for conducting the borders pilot. We in south-east Scotland do not get the opportunity as often as we would like to contribute and participate in some of the Government's initiatives, and it is a great tribute to Scottish Borders council that it not only applied, but vigorously and robustly argued and lobbied to be included in the pilot. The council is a bit sore that it cost it £5,000 in fees to contribute to the pilot, but, in retrospect, it believes that the money was well spent and it has gained incalculably in improved policy.
  The local programme director, Fiona White, worked unstintingly and well beyond her contracted hours to generate great local enthusiasm, which has paid handsome dividends. Many councillors—especially Jim Scott, in Hawick—attended all the SEARCH conferences, each of which was a very genuine and useful dialogue between the professional staff and older people, helping to tease out some of the issues.
  I pay tribute especially to the volunteers in the 50-plus age group themselves who contributed more than 5,000 hours over two years. They made a signal contribution to the success of the pilot—which received a very high mark from Warwick university's evaluation of it. Even if nothing else happens, the pilot has achieved many positive outcomes that will benefit us locally.
  Elders councils are a very important concept that I hope the Government will consider further. The councils enable older people to work with professional staff and voluntary organisations in contributing in an integrated manner to decision making. That proved to be extremely valuable. There is a model in the evaluation of the Borders pilot project to which I draw the Minister's attention.
  Direct and active participation can lead to less long-term dependency because it engages people's interest and gets them more actively involved, physically and mentally.
  The pilot project has been extremely successful. The bad news, perhaps, is that it has stimulated a level of expectancy and almost excitement among the people who participated in it. My constituents were genuinely excited and engaged in the process. I hope that, in the fullness of
  322
  time, the Government will be able to fulfil that expectancy and promote a national roll-out of the programme that will satisfy those aspirations. A lot has been achieved, but more can be done in the longer term with a little help from central Government.
  11.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this debate and on choosing a subject that, as he hinted in his speech, is close to my own heart. On 25 April this year I will cross the threshold and officially become an older person. A few years ago, I took pride in saying that I was the youngest grandfather in the House, but a few hon. Members who are younger than me now have grandchildren. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, if only for personal reasons, as the clock ticks on the foothills of old age, we should secure a better future for older people and for ourselves.
  The programme has been an excellent example of modernising government in action. At the national level it has brought together older people and central and local government on a consistent basis, which was no mean feat. The voluntary sector and the academic world have also played a significant part. A small but dedicated team, led by the programme's director, Martin Shreeve, has ably supported them. Together they have helped to steer the programme to a very successful conclusion.
  The real work has been done at local level, however. The 28 pilot projects, including the one in the Scottish borders, have taken on a wide variety of tasks and adopted different methods to reach their goals. Without the efforts of local authorities, their partner organisations and, most importantly, the older people who played such an active role, we would not now be in position to learn the practical lessons of what works and what does not.
  I do not have time to give the hon. Gentleman the Government's response to all the issues that he raised, such as stereotypes, so I shall write to him. On behalf of the Government, I would like to pay tribute to all those involved in the programme. The result of their work will be a better deal for older people from the public services, not over one year, but through continually improving services to older people and their access to them.
  On 30 January, the Government will publish their response to the programme's recommendations. I cannot reveal the details, but I can say that the Government look forward to building on the better government for older people programme and its experience and developing the partnerships that it has established. I hope that I have addressed the hon. Gentleman's concern about continuation. I shall write to him as soon as I can and send him a personal copy of the report. Following the meeting on 30 January I shall write to him again about its outcome.
  In Scotland and the Scottish borders in particular, the project helped to create a new culture of engagement and partnership in respect of working with older people between agencies and elected representatives. There was a profound change in other people's perception of older people and their potential for positive involvement as well as a change in older people themselves. No longer a burden, older people are now seen as a credible and knowledgeable group of people who should be listened

  323
  to; a resource that can be accessed as articulate, active citizens of the community, with an equal partnership in the community, working not just with other older people, but with younger people, community groups, local authorities, the private sector and the voluntary sector, using their skills, knowledge and experience to build a better community.
  A key theme of the pilot was simpler access to community care to secure organisational change in the borders, integrating health and social work services. The team was congratulated by the programme evaluators on
  adopting a systematic and multi-faceted approach to managing the changes and recognising and responding to the complexities of introducing change on this scale.
  I, too, congratulate all involved in bringing the project to fruition so quickly.
  The programme was always intended to last for two years. Its achievements are all the more impressive given the short time scale. The challenge now is to ensure that the lessons are learned and applied more widely across the public sector. In response to the 28 pilot projects, an increasing number of local authorities have sought of their own volition to gather information on best practice and to make changes without being within the pilots. The changes that the hon. Gentleman seeks are already under way. We hope that, following our response on 30 January, there will be even more progress on how local authorities can more effectively deliver services for older people.
  Funding for the 28 pilot projects has come overwhelmingly from local authorities, with some additional funding from local partner organisations. It is important for local government to take the decision to continue to support the projects and to widen the drive to modernise services. We will work with local authorities to ensure that that happens.
  In Scotland, there has been a more than 9 per cent. increase in funding over the next three years for local services. We are transferring an additional £81 million from the Department of Social Security to the Scottish Executive for the care of the elderly. Resources have flowed from the consequences of the programme.
  I will send to the hon. Gentleman a set of practical examples of the pilot projects that have taken place across Britain, to show that there has been a wide dissemination throughout Scotland and the English regions of ideas from older people themselves on education, access to information, health and social care, joining up local services, better environments and how we can better co-ordinate between service providers in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Some amazing work has been done. We want to ensure that hon. Members encourage their local authorities to carry on the work that has been evaluated through the projects.
  We are committed to policies that will allow older people to play a full part in society. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has been appointed to co-ordinate policies for the over-50s. The inter-ministerial group for older people will continue to ensure that older people's issues are at the centre of Government thinking. That group will work directly with pensioner organisations. Listening to older people events took place throughout the UK in 1999, and in May 2000 we launched a programme of action under the title "Life Begins at 50".
  324
  A key initiative has been to secure £300 million of investment to get more people involved in their communities, £120 million of which will be used to fund volunteering in public services by experienced people over the age of 50, bringing them back into productive activity. Another has been anti-discrimination legislation, building on the current code of practice on age diversity in employment, which will be introduced by 2006.
  Care Direct will get £30 million over the next three years to pilot new approaches to giving people better access to social care, housing and social security benefits. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the pilot projects for that programme. If they are successful, the programme will be rolled out over the next three years across the United Kingdom, changing dramatically the way in which older people and their carers and families can access advice, support and services in the care sector.
  Winter fuel payments were increased to £200 this year. As part of the £1.4 billion announced in the NHS plan, an extra £900 million is to be made available for intermediate care and related services. Free television licences are worth £104 a year.
  There have been increases in the basic state pension. We have introduced the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit. Over the next three years, we shall invest £200 million to modernise social security services for pensioners. As a direct result of what pensioners have said to us, there have been dramatic changes. Huge resources have been allocated to change the organisation and structure of government and our delivery of services for older people.
  From June 2000, the new home energy efficiency scheme will be provided for older people—especially those in low-income households. They will be able to heat their houses more efficiently.
  The national service framework for older people will be published shortly. From October 2001, there will be free medical care for people living in nursing homes. There will be breast screening for all women aged between 65 and 70. There are free eye tests for people aged over 60 and free influenza immunisation for the over-65s.
  Many of those measures were initiated by older people themselves; they percolated from the grassroots. Older people have influenced the Government; we give them the credit. We have introduced measures, but they came about through partnership.
  Such partnership is about more than considering the narrow issue of delivering and modernising services locally—the approach has been holistic. From the debate articulated by older people, the Government have been able to act on other matters that were outside the pilot project, so as to improve Government services and access to services. We have introduced new services and changed the structure of government. That process will continue over the next few years, until we have a Government structure that meets the daily needs of older people while constantly involving them in considering their priorities, the nature of services and their access to such services and indeed, on occasion, the funding of those services.
  The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on this matter. Through the inter-ministerial group, I hope that none of my Government colleagues—whether or not they are directly involved in the delivery of services to older people—has failed to understand and accept the need to

  325
  put older people at the heart of their policy-making processes. However, policy making must become a reality through services. The needs of older people must be at the heart of the decision-making process.
  Better Government for older people has been an example of "Modernising Government" in action: high-quality, responsive public services and partnership in working. The involvement of older people in the programme and their commitment to it provides a sharp contrast to the stereotypical and negative way in which they are sometimes portrayed—as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Without their energy, application, drive, knowledge and commitment, the programme could not have succeeded as it has.
  The Government will respond to build on the achievements of the programme; in time, we will help to deliver improvements in services in areas, such as the Scottish borders, that were lucky enough to have been involved from the outset and in those that have taken up
  326
  the challenge more recently, as well as in those areas where better integrated and more responsive services for older people are yet to come. That is the next challenge—not just setting up pilot projects or building on them, but involving those areas of the country that are not yet engaged.
  This is a report in progress. The first phase is over; we are going into the second phase after 30 January and then we shall begin the third phase. There will be a rolling programme of improvements. I am happy again to express my praise for the achievements of the Scottish borders pilot, as described by the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to writing to him on several matters after the debate. I thank him again for bringing the issue to the attention of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Rural Policing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Prior: While researching this important debate, I was forcefully struck by a reminder that Sir Robert Peel first established a system of uniformed police patrols as long ago as 1829. The instructions given to the police force at that time stated:
It should be understood, at the outset, that the principal object to be attained is the Prevention of Crime. To this great end every effort of the Police is to be directed. The security of person and property, the preservation of the public tranquillity, and all the other objects of a Police Establishment, wil1 thus be better effected, than by the detection and punishment of the offender, after he has succeeded in committing the crime.
What a salutary reminder that is today, more than 150 years later. There is no better way of deterring and preventing crime than having local uniformed police officers living in the community—men and women who live and breathe the job and who are police officers because they believe in the concept of duty and public service, who have a true vocation to uphold the law and who have the respect and trust of the communities in which they serve. Charlie Brown and Sid Wright, retired police constables who live in my constituency, are two excellent examples of such officers. One may feel that such sentiments are old-fashioned, easily parodied and have little role in the professional modern police force of today. I disagree. To make one more old-fashioned statement, the likelihood of being caught is an important consideration in the mind of the would-be criminal. The overriding aim of the police is to stop crime before it happens and before it becomes a Home Office statistic.
The case for more uniformed police officers is, I believe, unanswerable. The fall in numbers over the past few years is well known and must be rectified. My constituents and I demand to see more police officers walking down our streets and about our market towns. We are constantly told that the statistics show how safe it is to live in rural areas. It sometimes seems that one will drown in statistics. The fact is that low level crime and antisocial behaviour are increasing. I can give the Minister umpteen examples of public toilets being wrecked, newly planted trees uprooted, street lights broken, shop windows smashed, obscenities shouted, playgrounds vandalized, boy racers speeding around car parks and town centres, and graffiti scrawled on churches. I doubt if many of those incidents end up in the crime statistics, but such behaviour causes great distress to ordinary, decent people.
The Minister should be in no doubt that ordinary, decent people have just about had enough. There is no more important freedom in a civilized society than the freedom to live without fear and intimidation. The rule of law and its acceptance by the people, even when they
2WH
disagree with it, is the hallmark of a mature democracy. It is a paradox that freedom is both constrained and preserved by law and order policies. However, I am sure that all hon. Members believe that people should not feel or be threatened by crime.
Since the last election, the number of officers in Norfolk has declined by 45 to 1,387. In November 2000, Jim Wilson, the chairman of the Norfolk police authority, stated:
We have to cover a 2,000 square mile area with 1,400 officers. We only have 107 officers out on the beat at any one time and that equates to one officer per 19 sq. miles. The thin blue line is being spread very thinly indeed.
His predecessor, Brian Landale, earlier stated:
Crime in Norfolk is being fought on a shoestring.
Norfolk now has the second lowest number of police officers per 1,000 people in the whole of the United Kingdom. In north Norfolk, for much of the time, there are simply not enough police officers available to be on the beat. Last week, a senior officer said:
We want to put more police officers on the beat but we simply do not have the manpower resources to do so.
Another officer said:
We are always struggling with the bare minimum.
Police officers are frustrated that they do not have the resources to do the job, that too many rural police stations have closed and that the rent allowance, which enabled police officers to live more easily in their communities, has been abolished. The Conservatives in government were wrong to end the rent allowance. Equally, this Government have been wrong to allow police numbers to fall and police stations to continue to close. They have also been wrong not to allocate more resources to police forces that operate in rural areas.
I make the same point about specials, who are not a substitute for experienced, trained police officers, but can complement the force. Some are outstanding; all are volunteers. Their numbers, too, have been falling throughout the country, from just under 20,000 in 1997 to just over 14,000 today. That fall must be reversed— and quickly. Specials have an important role to play: more uniformed, visible police will go a long way towards reassuring the public.
I make two points about the culture of the modern police force. The first concerns the insidious growth of political correctness. Every time that I read of complaints about racism, sexism and homophobia in the police force, my heart goes out to the thousands of decent, normal police officers who have to put up with that liberal, woolly-minded, unfair criticism. How can the Norfolk constabulary, for example, justify a cultural audit on sexism, homophobia and racism? Are we really saying that they are important issues in Norfolk? Is it not time that we stood up for the integrity and decency of police officers, instead of seeing them harassed, wrongly, for lesbian bullying, institutional racism and the like?
Secondly, the Local Government Act 1999 introduced what is euphemistically called best value. It is a wholly bureaucratic system, which could almost have been designed to drive out what is best in the police service. It is all about models, corporate reviews, mission statements, research teams, statistics, key milestones, performance development reviews,

3WH
corporate plans and best value performance indicators—and very little about effective community policing. That is a perfect recipe for paralysis through analysis.
There are now more than 700 civilians in the Norfolk police constabulary; 20 years ago, the number was minimal. It takes on average eight hours for a police officer to make an arrest and bring it to a conclusion. Police officers need to, and should, be on the beat, not in the office filling in forms.
Best value allows politicians, locally and nationally, to get into the minutiae of operational policing, which should be none of their business. It bogs the force down in a welter of unnecessary reports, overheads and administration. It distorts priorities and creates a culture of meeting published targets, rather than doing what is best. It creates political priorities, not policing ones. Most damaging of all, best value will move the emphasis even further away from the qualitative aspect of policing to the quantitative aspect. It will allow people to argue for more police in our cities—where more arrests can be made—and less in rural areas. It will measure crime detection but fail to measure crime prevention. It will divert the police away from the less visible aspects of policing into the political headlines. How can we measure the impact of a police constable walking the beat in a town or village that he knows or the informal words that he or she has with a parent or schoolteacher? How can we properly value the role of the traditional police constable who works within the community as part of the community? They are the unsung heroes who do not appear in Home Office statistics but whose contribution is, literally, immeasurable. Sir Robert Peel must be turning in his grave.
My message to the Minister is that he should get his and other politicians' hands out of operational policing. They should set the police free to run their own forces, rather than trying to do that for them. Equally important, they should not force chief constables and senior officers to become politicians and spin doctors.
Rural policing is about more than just the police. The police need the support of the public—parents, youth services, voluntary groups, statutory agencies, schools, district, town and parish councils and the Church—to do their job properly. Whether we like it or not, we are all involved: law and order touches us all. Without it, no one is free. With it, it will work—but only in a free society and with consent. To be fair, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 encouraged partnerships between the police and parts of the community, but it provided no material resources or budgets. It has provided a forum for talking, which has some value, but little else.
Much antisocial behaviour originates from the young—but from only a tiny minority of them. The vast majority are well behaved, decent, and law-abiding. Of course, young people will sometimes behave badly: who did not when they were young? Do we do enough for young people; is there enough for them to do? If so, how do they get there without decent public transport? What has happened to our youth centres? Living in the countryside has many drawbacks for young people. Inner cities have different problems, but the Minister should be under no illusion about how difficult it is for
4WH
young people living in the country to find things to do. I pay tribute to voluntary groups such as the Carpenter's Arms in North Walsham and the youth centre in Hickling, to youth workers and to all those who arrange after-school activities. The busier children are, the less likely they are to get into trouble.
What are my conclusions? We need more police officers on the beat; more police living in the communities in which they work; more respect for traditional police constables and sergeants who wish to serve their local communities and regard what they do as a vocation more than a job. We should recognise that the key function of the police is to deter crime and reassure the public. There should be less political correctness; less paperwork and bureaucracy; less political interference; greater support from all the community; and greater provision of activities for young people.
Rural policing is at a crossroads. There is no issue more important to those living and working in the country. The Minister may have no magic wand to wave, but I hope that he will give his unequivocal support to traditional community policing and pledge to give the Norfolk constabulary and other rural police forces the resources to do the job effectively.
9.42 am
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part in today's debate. Debating with the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) is like going over old terrain. I always thought PC was about getting police constables on the beat rather than political correctness. We must be approaching the election season because the hon. Gentleman's comments had a harder edge. I could, however, agree with much of what he said about the need to take rural policing forward.
The fact that we have debated the subject in the past does not make it any less important. If the "Today" programme is to be believed, policing is today's issue, so we must face up to our responsibilities, evaluate what is happening on the ground and ensure that policing is as effective as possible. There is no denying that rural policing is an issue; it certainly is in my constituency. I am not sure that it is the most important, but it is certainly a major issue. My constituents regularly talk to me about what should be happening and what they perceive—which are not necessarily the same.
I have regular contact with the police in my constituency. I go out on a Friday or Saturday night every three months to see what is happening on the street. It is the best way of understanding how the police operate, without telling them how to do their job.
Numbers are important and there can be no denying the dip since 1997. Gloucestershire is representative in seeking to recruit more officers, but budgets are an important factor. There can be no denying that the way in which we fund our police is under strain.
As the hon. Gentleman said, whether to close police stations or keep them open and move some police to areas with a larger population is a thorny issue. A police station was opened recently in my constituency because in the past 10 or 20 years the population has changed and the police must be where they are accessible and visible. Closing the police stations at Painswick, Rodborough and Minchinhampton caused difficulties

5WH
in the community. People like the idea of the physical presence of a police officer and when they were told that they would have named officers in their community their fears were usually assuaged. However, the single police officer at a station was often unavailable because of the pressures of work; it was a myth that people could just knock on the door and talk to their friendly police officer.
Police have a role to play in the community and in education. If officers do not have the time to go into schools to talk to young people it is counter-productive, because giving information and advice to young people is active policing; it is the last thing that should be cut, but it is sometimes sacrificed to other operational work. That problem should be tackled, because such sacrifices should not be made.
As I said, apart from the number of police, the issue that causes the most tension in rural areas is how police time is allocated. There is no easy way to persuade the general public that a visible police officer is not the same thing as an effective police officer. That does not mean that we want all police officers to work in specialist teams; in Gloucestershire there has been a big drive towards specialism. The chief constable in Gloucestershire, Tony Butler—he is looking forward to his retirement, but knowing how well thought of he is, we will find other things for him to do—is adamant that specialist work should continue. My hon. Friend the Minister might want to respond to that, because specialism can be at the cost of police on patrol, which causes tension.
The first night that I went out with the Stroud police I got it in the ear that they felt things had gone too far and that their overall policing responsibility had been diluted by the setting up of specialist teams. If Gloucestershire is anything to go by, crime has been cut, but there are some sticking points in that success: if there are more police on patrol, the size of the specialist teams must be reduced. That is as much of a dilemma in rural areas as it is in urban areas because the criminals are more subtle and can hide more easily in the country.
The numbers issue is crucial; however many policies, strategies and initiatives there are, they cannot be carried through without sufficient police numbers. I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter, but I have not yet received an answer, perhaps because it is such a difficult issue. One problem is that there is an age skew in the police force: the number of officers retiring is greater than the number of recruits, although I was pleased to hear about the numbers going to police college at present. It is easy to blame the previous Government, but the problem is not of our making. Officers who are retiring now are not being replaced because of our predecessor's policies, and we have to tackle that problem. It relates to the lack of investment in both recruiting and retaining. The armed forces have the same problem. One can recruit as many people as one likes, but unless they are retained there is a problem.
Then there is the problem of the retirement time bomb. I make no excuse for always going on about this. We have a particular problem in policing and I blame the Government for failing to grasp the nettle. It is a painful nettle. Let us not beat about the bush: during the miners' strike the police were offered a retirement and pension package that could never the equalled. Yes, the police pay a high contribution but so do taxpayers, and
6WH
local taxpayers in particular. In Gloucestershire an unacceptable 19 per cent. of the budget is now top-sliced for retirement and that comes out of operational funding. We cannot pretend that that is anything but damaging. Thankfully, the really unacceptable rate of increase of some of the figures has begun to slow. I suspect that that is because the budget is bigger and is perhaps being used in a slightly different way. We must accept that unless we grasp the retirement nettle, our budget will always be constrained. That has an enormous impact on what the police do.
Will my hon. Friend say something about what is being done about the retirement problem? One of the good news stories concerned asking police officers to serve longer. Fifty is a pretty arbitrary age, although I know that the police service is a 30-year service. Alan Cook, the community police officer in Stonehouse in my constituency, will be retiring this year. He is more than happy to carry on, not necessarily as a police officer, but in a civilian role. Everyone thinks that these officers must carry on in uniform, but that may not be the case. We could civilianise them and use them to good effect because of their knowledge and rapport with the local community. That would be much more cost effective than having police officers retire at 50 or in their early 50s to go on to other things. That problem is yet to be broached. It is the responsibility of this Government, but it arises from the actions of the previous Government. We must not misunderstand that.
Finally, I want to consider what is happening to policing. I agree with the hon. Member for North Norfolk that there are problems in rural areas as much as in urban areas. The market towns have a serious problem with alcohol abuse by young people on Friday and Saturday nights. It may be no different from when I was young, but it seems different. There seems to be more misbehaviour and more violence. I am the president of my local victim support group, and Sara Mason, who has been chairman during most of my time as president, has told me on more than one occasion how sad it is that when one counsels young people one finds that they are victims of crime as well as perpetrators of crime. In other words, they have been involved in a hell of a punch up and perhaps have been injured, but they also have to go to court because of offences that they have committed. The number of people who get involved in such fracas is a sad indictment of our society.
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. In the market towns of north Norfolk, which I know well, one finds groups of 20 to 30 young people, often as young as 11, 12 and 13. Most of them are entirely decent, but it takes only one or two troublemakers to lead the others astray. The fact that off-licences are often open in the street close by and the older boys can get alcohol to give to the younger children is a serious problem.
Mr. Drew: I totally agree. Anyone who has been a parish or town councillor—I am still a town councillor—will know that, trying to stop a licence being re-granted, or a new licence being granted, because of the allegations of what and to whom they sell, is the bane of our lives. The problem is that we have never had so much alcohol out on the streets and young

7WH
people drink to excess. We need to examine that. The Government pledged to produce an alcohol strategy, but it is a long time coming, and that is not unconnected to the problems of policing and law and order.
There is of course a link to drugs. Much of the criminality in the market towns in my constituency is, sadly, drug-related. It is too early to judge the drug trialing and testing orders, but among those who know about them, they seem to be popular. Hopefully, they provide a way in which we can get a grip on criminality.
It is worth mentioning that in Gloucestershire we have been innovatory with police information points. Better communication may be one way to countermand negativity among people who feel that their police are not sufficiently present. We look forward to full implementation of the radio project, but it will not come without some teething problems, if planning permissions are anything to go by. People want more policing, but they do not seem to want the masts that allow the proper communication required for better policing. I do not say that they are wrong to question where those masts go, but it does hold up the ability to communicate.
Police information points are, in effect, holes in the wall, so that people can pass messages on, sometimes in confidence, which is very important. That links in to neighbourhood watch schemes, which are popular in my area and continue to grow, but need continual reinvestment, because they are so important. Those who run them deserve congratulation.
Another issue is how to bring more people into policing, not necessarily full-time police officers. It is sad that we have lost special constables, and we need to re-evaluate the importance of volunteering. Being a police officer is an important way in which people can use their time as volunteers, and we must always encourage them. It is a way in which they can test out whether they like the job. Specials sometimes serve for 20 years, sometimes for less. Any time is invaluable, but we need to recognise how important these people are and give them every opportunity to go on to what they want to do and to be a special part of the police force.
The idea of parish police officers is interesting. Devolving power in the benefice of the parish means that information, knowledge and the ability to pre-empt problems can be dealt with locally. As always, there are dangers in two-tier policing. Such officers might not be respected or might be abused by being required to do low level work. However, parish officers are an interesting idea, and no one should have a monopoly of ideas about what we should be doing with policing. I agree with the hon. Gentleman for North Norfolk that there are many interesting ideas.
However, none of that gets us away from the fundamental role of the police, which is to be out on the streets, talking to people and catching criminals. The fundamental dilemma is that those things do not always match. We have to persuade the public that not seeing the police does not necessarily mean that they are not active. Impossible though it is to ask for both, we should be striving to achieve that. If my hon. Friend the Minister were able to overcome such an impossible dilemma, it should serve as his epitaph.
9.59 am
Mr. Lembit Öpik: As the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) pointed out, we are lucky in the countryside in that, at this stage at least, crime in most parts of rural Britain is not all that bad.
A few years ago, I was talking to the police in my area of mid-Wales. There had been a spate of 64 crimes over a period of some months on one of the trading estates and they had arrested two lads who owned up to 62 of them. It is widely believed that they did not own up to the other two simply because they had forgotten that they had done them.
We have a good clear-up rate much of the time and we do not have some of the problems that one sees in some of the inner cities and the most deprived parts of urban Britain. Having said that, there is no excuse for complacency. Both hon. Members who have spoken highlighted the psychological importance of a rural presence, with bobbies on the beat and so forth. To some extent, the police presence—like that of the post office— defines the character of communities in rural Britain, particularly rural England and Wales. It provides an identity to a community and a confidence that there is a balancing element locally, to which people can turn if things go wrong.
First, therefore, I encourage the Minister to consider the nature of the partnership between the public and the police in rural communities. It is important because that very presence probably has a powerful preventive effect in such communities. As they are tightly knit villages and towns, people tend to know each other. There is a much bigger "bang for your bucks" in the policing of communities where individuals feel personally responsible about participating—passively—in the law enforcement process.
Secondly, I shall highlight the importance of recognising that some issues that have been mentioned are not new. Robert Owen was born in my constituency in 1771—he was, arguably, the inventor of socialism and, indeed, the inspiration for the co-operative movement. If hon. Members are interested in hearing more about him, they can purchase copies of a programme that I presented only last summer. One thing that I learned about the great Robert Owen is that he left Newtown, the largest town in my constituency, partly out of despondency about all the fighting in the pubs. That was in the 1780s, more than 200 years ago.
Things have improved a little since then, but let us be realistic, pub brawls are nothing new and are certainly not unique to the countryside. I suspect that, in some ways, we regard them more seriously in rural communities because we tend to hear of the individuals involved. It is a much more personally motivated fracas, with two groups of lads from different villages deciding to settle a feud with their fists. To put it in perspective, however, it is still easier to resolve these problems in the countryside than in towns where, I suspect, pub violence is rather more serious.
Having said that, the hon. Member for Stroud is correct to say that the advancing drugs problem is a new phenomenon—it was not around even 20 years ago, let alone 200. One of the pressures on the modern

9WH
rural police force is to find ways to prevent that problem from getting worse. In most market towns and rural areas, there is not the same proportion of hard drug taking as there is in a comparable age group in an urban area, although I accept that there are variations.
Clearly, there is a relationship between the use of hard drugs and criminality, so I hope that the Minister will say how he intends to prevent the advance of such drugs in rural areas. Blessed as we are in those communities with a lower percentage of drug problems, there is a great and urgent challenge to try and keep it that way.
Thirdly, I agree with the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Stroud that the rural police do a good job. They are very committed, not least because they identify with the communities they represent. It is that personal relationship that gives a good rural police officer his or her strength and authority. It provides additional pressure because, when officers are off duty, they are still known to the people in the area. More than urban police officers, rural police officers are on duty all the time.
Mr. Prior: Response times are one of the best value performance indicators in North Norfolk. When someone rings the police, he or she wants prompt service. For that reason, local senior officers feel that they cannot put people on the beat because they cannot make the response times. That is exactly the sort of issue that should be left to local police forces, rather than relying on a centralised overall performance indicator.
Mr. Öpik: I shall deal with performance indicators when I have concluded on this point. Most of all, we should consider how we might reward, not necessarily financially, most rural police officers, who have an almost pastoral role in those communities, where they still take a lead. One could almost say that police officers in the countryside do the job in a way that police officers in the whole country did 40 or 50 years ago.
Referring to the point made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, we have to be careful how we measure the performance of rural police officers. Performance indicators are a rough and ready way of measuring success, as enormous distances are involved. Some of the performance indicators are more appropriate to a city or urban environment than to a rural environment. Can the hon. Gentleman comment on whether there may be a case for having slightly different indicators or altering the parameters to take into account the different environments in which the police operate throughout the UK?
I will conclude by raising three concerns. First, although policing in the countryside is different, it has comparable or even greater funding requirements because the distances are enormous—a small number of police officers are expected to perform an almost impossible task. For example, when organised gangs steal farm equipment, they have the advantage of stealth and the police have the disadvantage of sparsity of resources and distance. In that situation, the police would be grateful for additional resources to clear up a specific problem without compromising policing elsewhere.
10WH
Secondly, strain in the probation service is a less recognised problem. Once the police are involved, their concern is often with sentencing rather than with curing the original cause. It is important that we recognise that the probation services in those areas need to be handled sensitively, and that their funding requirements will have a direct bearing on the degree of crime that the police have to clear up.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will recognise that his fellow Ministers in other Departments are considering where courts should be located in rural areas. In mid-Wales and Montgomeryshire we are particularly concerned that if the courts are closed, a siting injustice of distance will be imposed and the psychological presence of the courts will also disappear. That would be a serious problem and I hope that the Minister is sensitive to the relationship between his work and that of other Ministers.
I want to make a fourth point about fox hunting. I will not raise the issue but, if option 3 is passed on Wednesday, it will put an additional strain on the police forces, who will be expected to enforce it. I have asked the Minister to bear in mind that many of us think that that would require extra funding. If he wants to comment today, I should be glad to hear him, but I recognise that that is an issue for another day.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Dyfed-Powys police force on the work that it does, and other police forces throughout rural Britain that work so hard to enforce the law. I invite the Government to ensure that the police are given funding to maintain the sort of partnership that maintains the peace in their areas. I hope that the police can be involved in preventive activities rather than simply having to clear up the damage afterwards.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will confirm what I have always believed— that the ideal form of policing is self-discipline. Self-discipline comes from hope and gives young people and individuals a reason to be stakeholders in this peaceful society rather than to be disruptive. If we do that, I have little doubt that life in rural Britain will continue to be tremendously peaceful and rewarding.
10.10 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on a useful debate.
I begin on a slightly abrasive note. I respect and like the hon. Gentleman a lot, but his implicit criticisms of the chief constable of the Norfolk constabulary were wrong, and I want to say why. It is not right to criticise the chief constable for trying to address racism, homophobia and sexism in his police force. Ken Williams has been an outstanding chief constable, during times which, in many respects, have not been easy, with a number of cases given a great deal of local publicity. I support him, and I believe that the great majority of the citizens of Norfolk—I speak as a Member for a Norfolk constituency—would not associate themselves with some of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made, and that some of his constituents have made in the press, suggesting that those are not appropriate issues with which a police force, or its chief constable, should deal. The chief constable has been

11WH
right and courageous. It is important that the police force maintains high standards and values in the way that it approaches the citizenry that it seeks to police. I regret that the hon. Gentleman made those remarks in an otherwise interesting and informed speech.
I must take up two other aspects of what the hon. Gentleman said. The suggestion that there has been any encroachment by the Government on the operational independence of chief constables is wrong. Chief constables are rightly free to carry out policing in the way that they think fit. Of course, chief constables will talk to people—certainly the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I—about policing issues. Neither I nor the Government intend in any way to inhibit, nor should we seek to inhibit, the operational independence of chief constables to take whatever policing decisions they think right in the circumstances that they face. That includes operational deployment, issues around particular crimes and so on.
The principle of partnership is important. I talk to police officers a great deal about that, and one of their greatest resentments is that all the problems of society, such as the matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred, are laid at the police's door. In fact, it is up to the whole community to decide how such issues should be taken up.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made some apposite and correct points about partnership, in riposte to the hon. Member for North Norfolk. Perhaps that prefigures the coming general election contest between the hon. Member for North Norfolk and a strong local Liberal Democrat contender. I share the view of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that partnership is at the core of the problem. Genuine partnership between the police and the public, community organisations and other statutory organisations is the way to build the self-reliance and self-discipline which, I again agree, lie at the core of our approach to many such matters.
A number of issues have been raised, and we should start with the reality of rural crime. The Government are today publishing figures—indeed, published them 14 minutes ago—on recorded crime in this country. In Norfolk, crime has gone down by 0.7 per cent. In Gloucestershire, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, crime has gone down by 2.7 per cent. In Dyfed-Powys, where the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has his constituency, the figures are down by 4.9 per cent.
Fourteen police authorities, originally led by Lincolnshire, organised to make a case for rural policing, to which I have sought to respond. In 11 of those authorities, crime is down over the period from last year to this, according to the figures published today. Some of the falls are striking, and I shall give two or three examples. I have already mentioned Dyfed-Powys at 4.9 per cent., and I pay tribute to the force for achieving that. In North Yorkshire, the police authority of the Leader of the Opposition, crime is down by 6 per cent. In Devon and Cornwall, crime is down by 5.1 per cent., in Wiltshire by 9.5 per cent., in Northampton by
12WH
9.5 per cent., in Cumbria by 13.4 per cent., and in Warwickshire by 7.2 per cent. Those are significant reductions by any stretch of the imagination.
I in no sense suggest that all in the garden is rosy—far from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for North Norfolk rightly raised issues of violent crime and disorder in market towns—also discussed in today's newspapers—and I shall return to those issues shortly when I discuss partnership. But the record is stronger than some have suggested is the case. There is a great deal more to be done, but there are significant results and improvements. As I have said, crime is going down significantly—in some cases by large percentages—in 11 of the 14 police areas involved in the rural authorities group.
I am familiar with the Conservative politician's slogan of the 19th century—Benjamin Disraeli's
"lies, damned lies and statistics".
Statistics can confuse the public debate rather than enlighten it, and I understand that some people try to use statistics to that end. However, understanding what is really going on in society and trying to measure it is important. We need to inform the public debate on the various issues before us. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for North Norfolk, but to reminisce about how it used to be is not the way to focus public debate.
On police resources, I once again mention the 14 rural authorities that have been so successful in their roles. The police funding provisional settlement, announced last year, has yet to be completely finalised, but 11 of the 14 authorities have received settlements above the national average of 4.9 per cent., and three of them received lower settlements. Among the authorities of those hon. Members who have spoken today, Norfolk received 5.8 per cent, Gloucestershire 5.5 per cent. and Dyfed-Powys 6 per cent. Those figures are significant, and it is hard to argue—particularly given the very good performances on crime that many of the rural authorities achieved—that those authorities have not had a fair crack on resources.
Because we were concerned about sparsity, to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred, we were concerned about the costs involved for rural police forces. Members will be aware that last year we made an additional £15 million available to rural forces in the second half of this year. There will be £30 million for next year and the other years of the comprehensive spending review settlement, and that has been allocated to 31 police forces on the basis of a formula. The hon. Member for North Norfolk may be interested to know that Norfolk received just over £1 million this year, and will receive just over £2 million in a full year. That money will make a real difference to rural policing as we try precisely to address cost issues as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
I am the first to say that more resources would help and that dealing with things more effectively is important. However significant money has been provided, quite above and beyond the settlement on police funding.
Mr. Drew: The Minister was generous in seeing our deputation from Gloucestershire more than a year ago and we much appreciate the additional funding through

13WH
the sparsity factor, but there is almost a need for a sparsity-plus factor because the budget for policing is not just about what the police authority gets but the impact on other parts of an area. We would strongly ask him to consider how we can build up the county council, and, indeed, funding through other services.
Mr. Clarke: I accept that that is a fair case, and, as my hon. Friend says, I greeted a delegation from the authority and the chief constable, Tony Butler, to whom I pay tribute. He is retiring shortly and has been an outstanding chief constable. He is the man who considers performance indicators and so on for ACPO. I have received delegations from police authorities throughout the country and, so far, although my ministerial experience has been brief, not one of them has asked for less money. I am confident that that will happen, but so far it has not. I live in hope. Certainly, I expect that from some Conservative parts of the country, as their overall spending plans make it clear that they cannot afford what we want to do. I am confident that Conservatives will come forward and ask for a little bit less. Perhaps one should not live in too much hope of that happening as one goes round the course.
The point about visibility is extremely important, and I shall come to police numbers in a moment, as it was a point raised at the outset by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. Visibility is critical. There are a number of ways of trying to increase visibility. One is police numbers, but there are other means. Parish specials, as mentioned earlier, have been used successfully in some parts of the country. I have spoken to the police officers concerned and, if a particular parish has a special constable who is committed to and living in that parish, that raises confidence and improves visibility, for exactly the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. Other examples are the police working more closely with communities of which they are a part, or through churches or village halls. I met a group of vicars from Norfolk and discussed how the police could work more closely with the Church in exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman said. Establishing a local police presence in other areas—a local blue light in community halls—is another means of doing that.
In the north-west and north Wales, there are interesting things called pods—police vans regularly parked, like travelling libraries, in a central place, such as a city centre or housing estate. Police and people from the community can discuss problems and move forward. I have seen some interesting initiatives of that type.
Targeting patrolling raises important issues. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that that is not simply a matter of police walking around the streets in a rather unfocused way, but of looking at particular times and circumstances—in the middle of the night in a market town, for instance—to ensure a police presence where there are likely to be problems and targeting in a scientific and planned manner. I am currently discussing a variety of means with the police and I am confident that we will shortly agree that annual reports from chief constables will include local information on how they are improving visibility and accessibility in every ward or parish within their particular patch. That will create tensions and difficulties, of course, but it will be an important departure, so that people can see how visibility is being achieved in their particular locality.
14WH
Police numbers are, of course, an important and critical element. We announced that during the six months to September last year, the number of police officers increased by 444 after a steady decline during the previous seven years. Ten of the 14 authorities to which I referred have seen an increase in numbers and the hon. Gentleman said that there has been an increase of six in Norfolk. There have also been increases of 28 in Gloucestershire and five in Dyfed-Powys. Some of those increases may be small, but the trend of the past seven years is beginning to turn. We have announced today that 10 of the 14 authorities have seen an increase in police officers. That is significant and a start in the right direction.
As a result of our crime fighting fund, there has been a major increase in police recruitment and training, and we announced the figures in a press release yesterday. During 1999-2000, 3,030 recruits started residential training nationally. In the current year, that number has increased to 5,268, which is a significant increase of 74 per cent. In Norfolk, for example, the number of people entering the police force increased from 30 in 1999-2000 to 64 in 2000-01. Again, that will not break the bank and will only provide some recovery from past problems, but it is a significant improvement and should be welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked about retirement. He rightly said that many police officers leave after 30 years' service. I know police officers in the Norfolk constabulary in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Norfolk who are distressed at having to leave because they believe that they have more to offer the service. We are discussing with the police how to deal with the pension and pay situation to make it financially sensible for police officers who want to continue in the service after 30 years to be able to do so. There are technical difficulties concerning pension rights and so on, but we are actively considering the matter because we agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, many police officers can make a significant contribution at a time when it is better for them financially to retire. We want to ensure that they can make that contribution.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend referred to the numbers dilemma. His chief constable, Tony Butler, leads for ACPO in matters concerning paedophile crime, which is a major issue in which intelligence is the main means of tracking. Bobbies on the beat are not so involved, although they are important in some circumstances, because intelligence and resources are needed to discover where people are and to track them. Tony Butler leads for the police service nationally in what we are trying to do in that area. There is tension between that work and the number of bobbies on the beat, and we must deal with both. We cannot deal with one and not the other.
I was also pleased that my hon. Friend referred to my wife's good friend Sara Mason, who lives in his constituency. We had a Christmas card from her and I know that she is enjoying being a constituent of the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he knows her or whether he appreciates my reference, but it may feed discussion because she is very active and committed.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred to drugs, and rightly so. The problem of how drugs are distributed in rural areas has not been fully addressed, and we are trying to do deal with it through the

15WH
partnership approach, and other measures. Drugs would have been unthinkable in many small communities in the countryside 15 years ago, but are now a normal part of life. We can deal with the problem only as part of our overall approach, and we are committed to that.
Court closure is a matter for my colleagues. On hunting, I look forward to the debate to see how the issues resolve themselves.
I heard what the hon. Member for North Norfolk said about performance indicators in rural areas. There is some variation—in terms of robbery, for example— between performance indicators for police in urban areas and rural areas. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will give the matter positive consideration.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. I have tried to respond to it in a rounded way. I believe that we can be proud of the Government's record, although there is a great deal still to be done if we are to achieve the secure rural communities about which hon. Members spoke and to which I am committed.

Air Passengers
10.30 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: It is a pleasure to be the third speaker from Norfolk, following the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). That is surely a notable event in the history of this Palace.
Public health and safety are live issues in people's minds and in the media, and are high on the political agenda. Genetically modified crops, depleted uranium, the measles, mumps and rubella—MMR—vaccine, stem cells and bovine spongiform encephalopathy have all evoked a strong public response. The views of the public, which are often gained from the media and from personal experience, are much more important in policy decisions than they were five years ago. Many organisations, including government, have yet to get ahead of the game and see such issues coming so that they can react more proactively.
My subject is airlines and health, which has been the subject of an investigation and subsequent report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. The report, entitled "Air Travel and Health", was published in November 2000. The media have recently piled into the debate, providing useful— and less useful—data to enlighten the public. Over the past few days, serious accusations have been levelled against some of the airlines. Sadly, much of the available information is anecdotal. In the absence of a well-funded research programme carried out by independent researchers—for which the Committee asked—we have to rely on that level of data.
I am convinced that deep vein thrombosis is a problem on long-haul flights and that research into other modes of transport, such as cars and buses, is also necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South and I travelled down here with our knees together on the Anglia rail service. Although the journey takes only two hours, the effect on one's knee joints can be penetrating, and it is necessary to get up and walk around.
Eminent consultants at the Ashford hospital, which is the nearest hospital to Heathrow, have claimed that deep vein thrombosis causes about one death a month, although that figure is disputed. In the past few months, fit athletes on their way to the Olympic games have suffered from the problem. Speaking from personal experience, my wife developed a stabbing pain in her back five days after we had returned on a 12-hour flight from a cancer conference in New Orleans. Many people die on the aeroplane itself or just afterwards, but some suffer the effects five days to two weeks later. That means that the problem is not recorded as such in the data of the national health service; it appears as a pulmonary embolism.
Five days after the flight, my wife found that she could not breathe properly and was rushed into Norfolk and Norwich hospital's accident and emergency unit. The senior house officer's first question was, "Have you been on a long-haul flight?" It was clear that such symptoms are common knowledge among the hospital profession. Indeed, the house officer told me that she had seen at least 12 other cases over the past year. The blood has to

17WH
be diluted with warfarin for six months—a strict regime involving procedures that can make life quite uncomfortable.
Happily, my wife survived the experience. She does not want to make it a big issue by going to court. She wants to get on with her life but remember the experience, so that she knows the tactics to prevent it from happening again. The problem is not confined solely to economy class, but in economy seats—most people have experienced them—one person's knees are in the back of the next person, so when the seat in front comes back, one has less room to move around.
Deep vein thrombosis is not age related. Sadly, young women have died, while people of all ages have experienced clotting. The clot does not always move to the lungs or brain; it may dissolve itself without effect. Nevertheless, it forms during the initial phase when the legs begin to swell.
What advice is received by Ministers, who travel frequently due to the nature of their jobs? Indeed, I inquired at the parliamentary travel office to discover what information it has received on that subject. One high-profile event could spark a major problem, perhaps even a panic, which we do not want. I suspect that the problem is common, but we must collect more data.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: My hon. Friend mentioned the report by the House of Lords, which states that if there is an increased risk of DVT from flying, it is small. We must do more research to link DVT conclusively with flying.
Dr. Gibson: Although it is true that the risk is small, it is incongruous to say that we need new data to prove that. We do not know how many people have contracted a thrombotic effect by flying, because we have anecdotal evidence only. Until we collect all the data from NHS hospitals, we shall not know the risk. It may be a small risk, but one death is one too many. There have been many anecdotal cases, and the report by the House of Lords includes 12 pages of such evidence, some of which was contributed by hon. Members.
The report by the Science and Technology Committee is a stunning document produced by some highly erudite people. It states:
Like other human activities, air travel can never be risk free. Most people readily accept substantially greater risks—to both health and physical safety—in respect of other forms of mass transport, and, indeed, many other aspects of their daily lives. So that people can make properly informed choices (even if others regard those as the "wrong" choices), risks need to be identified, managed and communicated.
My criticisms of the airlines relate to that point about communication. The health of the consumer on flights must become as important as safety issues such as exits.
The airlines have commented on the situation. However, because they do not want to create mass panic, there is a whiff of complacency in the air. On 28 May 2000, a spokesperson for British Airways commented on a possible reduction in cabin seats, to provide passengers with more space:
There is no evidence to suggest blood clots are linked to flying— the problem is prolonged immobility.
18WH
In my view, that is flying. The spokesman continued:
Economy class syndrome is a misnomer, as this is a problem for the entire transport industry.
That seems to deflect the issue towards other forms of transport, which I acknowledge may share the problem. The spokesman said:
A lot depends on a passenger's lifestyle and previous medical history. Our in-flight managers give passengers important information about the need to exercise on long flights.
Yesterday, I met the official spokespersons for the airlines, and asked them what information passengers were given. The answer is that two thirds of the way through the in-flight document, which is stored in the backs of seats, there are three lines about possible health hazards.
When I asked the parliamentary travel office for the Government document on health advice for travellers, which was shown to me yesterday, all I got were astonished looks on the faces of the staff. The document is supposed to be available in post offices, but one cannot obtain it there, usually because it is out of print or cannot be found. The travel office had not heard of it. It contains a short paragraph on what airlines should regard as sufficient information. Other such documents may exist, but in 40 years of travelling across the Atlantic and elsewhere, I have never been given advance information on the hazards that may befall me. This debate must deal with how to present the risks, however small, associated with air travel. When I travel alone or with my family, I want to know what risks I am taking. Airlines have much to do in terms of health.
Yesterday, I received a letter from British Airways expressing concern about this issue, and stating that passengers should think about their health and take precautionary measures before they fly. However, the briefing note that accompanied the letter betrays a whiff of complacency, and I wonder whether British Airways will adopt that tone in the document that it has agreed to send with tickets. The briefing note states:
There is little evidence that sitting immobile in an aeroplane is any more likely to lead to thrombosis than sitting immobile in any other means of transport such as a bus, car or train.
That may be true, but at this stage we do not know. In my time, I have driven from London to Glasgow, and it is true that such journeys affect the body. One can imagine driving with one's legs wrapped around the steering wheel, but we should not try to compare one form of transport with another. One form of transport should not be allowed to hide behind other parts of the system.
I welcome the fact that British Airways' briefing note recommends participation in DVT research. It describes the economy class syndrome as a "misnomer", which is probably true. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee agrees, and wants to call it "travel thrombosis" instead, because other forms of travel could also lead to development of a clot. However, I find the following passage from the briefing note particularly interesting:
British Airways are pro-active in providing passengers with information and practical health advice through our dedicated health website—
I bet that all hon. Members have accessed this one—
(http://britishairways.com/health), our 24-hour medical helpline, and the "Well Being" sections of our in-flight magazine, High Life and a video demonstrating the in-flight exercises.

19WH
I am sorry that I missed that information. I hope that others have seen it and were happy with it. On sending out passenger tickets, British Airways will also include such information in a health leaflet.
As I said, the Science and Technology Committee has called for immediate epidemiological research. We do not know the extent of the problems, many of which, I should re-emphasise, develop days or in some cases weeks after a flight. Of course, it is difficult to say whether a problem was caused by a long-haul flight, given that the individual concerned might suffer from circulatory problems. We simply will not know the answers until proper research has been undertaken.
I understand why airlines are reluctant to accept that a cabin environment could lead to an overall increase in the risk of DVT, and I accept their argument that travel by other means could contribute to the development of thrombosis. However, they must take the issue seriously and do much more to inform the public. We need to indulge in preventive activities, and put an end to the patronising attitude that comes through in some of these documents. In terms of information, design and cabin services procedures, airlines and their associates must reappraise current air cabin practices, so that these problems can be dealt with. For example, when cabin staff explain emergency procedures, why do they not spend a few minutes pointing out that remaining immobile could lead to problems—whether sleeping on an overnight business class flight, or sitting with one's legs propped up trying to sleep in economy class? Why do they not make it fun? Why do they not get rows of five people at a time to get up at regular intervals to do exercises? Why do they not keep the aisles open so that people can move about and dodge the trolleys that are serving drinks?
As I am sure we all know, drinking is, in any case, bad for people when flying. Because one is worried about plunging out of the sky into the Atlantic, one tends to over-indulge. The airlines encourage that, while at the same time saying, "Don't drink alcohol—you'll get dehydrated. Drink lots of water." Although one can get plenty of water in the first or business class cabins, if one tries to get up to find water in economy, the cabin staff immediately say, " Go back to your seat, sir. We are in a pocket of air." It is difficult to deal with that sort of cabin procedure and some of the forceful staff. They are only doing their job, but practices need to be reconsidered if health problems are to be taken seriously.
I do not want to talk about the aspects of ventilation examined in the Select Committee report, because other hon. Members may want to talk about the fresh air problems and so on. The House of Lords Select Committee was not heavy on any of those issues and, while recognising that they needed to be looked at, it did not make a strong case.
Smoke odours and smells are also a problem in airliners. There are about 180 incidents a year when a puff of smoke comes through the cabin and passengers are told, "It is nothing, sir. We will sort it out in a minute." When that happens in the air, one tends to put one's head down because there is not much one can do about it, unless one has a parachute and has had the
20WH
training to use it. There will be a question in the main Chamber about the matter this afternoon. There are problems, but I am sure that the Government are addressing them.
During flights, medical emergencies can occur. Hon. Members will remember the fantastic story about an operation being performed with a coat hanger. In that instance, the right consultant happened to be on the right plane to save the person's life. Although it is not possible to have a consultant or a doctor on the ever-increasing number of flights, there can be ground contact—a sort of NHS Direct to the friendly skies, as they are called, from the ground—so that information and medical advice can be relayed to those in the air.
What, then, should passengers be doing? I have already mentioned some actions that can be taken. Some people may be more at risk than others from the duration of a flight, immobility, limited leg room, seating procedures and low humidity. Personal factors such as smoking, obesity and height are involved and somebody somewhere will no doubt find a gene that makes one prone to risk. I do not care about genetics; I would rather tackle the environment to make it safe, so that such a gene does not express itself and cause a blood clot.
It is important that the public know about the risk, whatever its extent. We are told that we should drink water, get up and walk in the aisles. We are also told to take an aspirin before flying, although medical advice should be sought about that because there can be problems with stomach ulcers. If I fly, I shall take aspirin the previous day and again a few hours before to thin the blood—as will my wife. Some types of elastic stockings can also be used. I shall fight my way past those trolleys of drink, not imbibing as I go. I shall flex my legs, tiptoe around, duck and dive and weave to make sure that I get exercise every so often. I shall not smoke or drink too much coffee or tea and I pledge not to drink any more alcohol on flights—although I might take just a tipple for the bravery required for landing. Alcohol on flights is not there to help; it is a displacement activity to make one feel better and to counteract the fear of plunging from the sky.
Lady Wilcox, who chaired the House of Lords Select Committee, which conducted a stunning inquiry, said:
Intending passengers are not told enough to enable them to make informed choices about their air travel … we recommend urgent research and the development of user-friendly information for passengers to reduce risks any further.
The Select Committee took the matter seriously and we ask the Government to do the same and to enjoin every British airline flying out of this country to induce good standards across the world and keep the public informed about the risks and what they should do to lessen them.
10.49 am
Mr. John Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing this debate on a subject of exceptional importance. I congratulate him, too, on the way in which he delivered his speech. He is a scientist. He has a much-deserved reputation in the House for bringing matters, particularly public health matters, to its attention. He has done well to do so today.
I intend to keep my remarks brief because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to draw the Chamber's attention to a particularly tragic incident

21WH
of deep vein thrombosis that occurred in my constituency. I have taken a great interest in the matter. A few months ago, I did not even know that the issue existed. I did not even realise that there was the possibility of a connection between long-haul air travel and potentially fatal conditions.
Last June, a local policeman, 30-year-old John Anthony Thomas from Flemingston in my constituency, went on a dream honeymoon to Hawaii, a marvellous, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. This chap was at the prime of his life. He had just had a rigorous police health check, which gave him a clean bill of health, he had no known history of cardiovascular or thrombotic conditions and, within about two weeks of returning from his honeymoon, he dropped dead. Clearly, that had a devastating effect on his wife, his family and everyone who knew him.
When I was asked by the family to intervene and to look at the case, I thought what a tragedy it was, but these things happened and a one-off tragedy such as that did not necessarily mean that there was a problem. Then I discovered a few defining characteristics of the case, some of which my hon. Friend has already alluded to.
Had the pathologist not mentioned that he thought that there might be a connection between pulmonary thrombosis and air travel, the family would not have had a clue. There would have seemed no need to look at the matter; they would not have made the connection automatically. However, the pathologist not only asked whether Mr. Thomas had been on a long-haul flight recently, but expressed the personal view that as many as 20 per cent. of DVTs treated by the national health service could be—I stress "could be"—associated with long-haul air travel.
That was when for me, as a lay person, the alarm bells started ringing. That is the difference between a one-off tragedy, no matter how horrendous and traumatic, and a public health problem. The gap between the flight and the tragic death suggests to me, as a lay man, that hundreds or thousands of undiagnosed deaths from pulmonary and other thromboses could be connected with long-haul flights. We simply do not know. That is the issue.
We have heard varying accounts of the numbers that might be involved. We have already heard about the number of deaths in Ashford, Middlesex, where it is estimated that one person a month dies. We have seen reports in the press suggesting that the number could run into thousands. We now discover that research has been carried out over the past 60 years. The first research into DVT connected with immobility was done in bomb shelters in the second world war, but who knew about that research? Did the airlines know about it? Has it been common knowledge that there is a direct correlation between immobility, especially in aircraft, and those potentially fatal conditions? I have concluded that there is a correlation.
Let me give a couple of small examples, although, sadly, they are anecdotal. I have not yet spoken to a doctor since we have been investigating the condition who does not take precautions before going on long-haul air flights, including taking an aspirin, wearing compression stockings, drinking large quantities of fluid and avoiding excess alcohol. It is not just one doctor, but every doctor to whom I have spoken. I recently took
22WH
part in a debate that involved a number of cardiovascular consultants. Every one of them not only took precautions but had been doing so for many years. The question that went through my mind and that of lay people taking part in the debate was how the hell the rest of us did not know about the problem, when the information had been available for a number of years.
That situation concerns me greatly. It is why I gave Mrs. Ada Thomas, the mother of that young policeman, an undertaking that, as her Member of Parliament, I would do all in my power to prevent any other mother having to go through what she went through as a result of a problem associated with long-haul travel. Not that she can be compensated for her loss; I assure those who meet her or members of her family that that cannot be done. However, we can, and will, discover once and for all what is behind what I believe to be a major public health problem.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not definitely know what causes the problem and we must find out. We must take action now to find out. The track record on investigating public health problems connected with hidden hazards is not a good one. A number of examples are frankly scandalous—I need mention only the production of asbestos. It took 60 years to establish a link between the production and handling of asbestos and mesothelioma. That tells us that we need to do something about the problem.
I intend to use Standing Order No. 23 to introduce a Bill to require airlines that carry British passengers and use British airports to provide all the available information to passengers, so that they are aware of the potential problems. There should be a legal requirement regularly to update that information for passengers and, importantly, to facilitate the gathering of any research or additional information, particularly national data, to ensure that air passengers are fully aware of the potential problems. That is key and the only way in which to speed up the collection of data to carry out the research to discover the background to the condition. There must be a legal requirement to produce information and to facilitate research on the issue. I hope that we get the widest possible support for that in the House so that no one else has to go through the trauma and tragedy experienced by my constituents. We must carry out the research as quickly as possible.
We do not yet know the extent of the problem but there is every indication that Mr. John Thomas was not the only example in Wales. There have been many high-profile cases of deep vein thrombosis connected with long-haul flights. They involve people of all age groups, both genders and completely different backgrounds. What is the connection?
Why do more people die in Wales than in other regions of the United Kingdom? It has been suggested to me that the reason is that Wales has the highest incidence of strokes and cardiovascular disease. The House of Lords Select Committee report suggests a direct correlation between those conditions and deaths after long-haul flights. The problem is that people are not told about the risk; airlines do not bring it to their attention. We must do everything that we can to make that information available.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the matter before the House. He has done an excellent job and a public service. I intend to try to introduce a Bill as

23WH
soon as possible to place a legal responsibility on airlines in this country. I will not make allegations. Many allegations about cover-ups, the provision of misleading information and disjointed data and research, whether by accident or design, have recently appeared in the press. I intend to ensure that we fast track the finding-out process. The problem could be greater than asbestos. It could be an even greater public health problem than BSE, which has recently dominated the attention of people in this country and throughout Europe. Thousands of people could die, so let us act now before it is too late.
It is my understanding that the Civil Aviation Authority has responsibility for the safety and welfare of passengers, but may not have responsibility for their health. Will my hon. Friend the Minister deal with that matter when he winds up the debate? I am grateful for having been called and for the opportunity to speak on the issue.
11.1 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on raising this extremely important issue. If I may say so to him and to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), I very much support the idea that new measures must be taken, by legislative means if necessary, to make certain that the current complacency—it is complacency—in the industry is dispelled as quickly as possible.
I entirely agree with what both hon. Members said about deep vein thrombosis. The hon. Member for Norwich, North may recall that I raised the issue on the Floor of the House on 28 July. However, I want to spend a few minutes dealing with some other issues that affect the health of air passengers and, indeed, aircrews. I will contrast the apparent complacency from which the industry suffers, not only nationally but internationally, with the growing concern among the public.
I give credit to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which seems to share the concerns of the public and of Members of Parliament. I am delighted to have had an increasingly responsive reception in the past few months when making representations to the Department. I pay particular tribute to the Minister for the Environment—I hope that the Minister present will convey this to him—for the positive way in which he has responded to my concerns, expressed in this and the main Chamber, on air quality in the aircraft cabin and cockpit.
Hon. Members present will acknowledge that, although the health and safety of passengers is extremely important, the health and safety of the whole aircraft may be in the hands of a small number of professional pilots and aircrew. I am therefore particularly concerned about the air quality that they may suffer during flight. I approach this issue as chairman of the all-party organophosphates group, of which the hon. Member for Norwich, North is a distinguished member. I was alerted to the problem of air quality by an incident in Sweden about 18 months ago. It was alleged—we still have no definitive report on
24WH
the incident—that an organophosphate lubricant in an aircraft's engines had caused the pilot almost to black out.
I shall not go into the technical details, as I want to leave the Minister time to respond in full. Suffice it to say that organophosphates used as lubricants in jet engines, and oil seals used in the maintenance of those engines, can be crucial factors affecting air quality in the cabin. If the problem of oxygen supply in different parts of different aircraft is added, a potentially fatal cocktail emerges.
Organophosphates in toxic fume form are extremely dangerous—obviously in the short term, but also in the long term. It is still unproven whether the chronic effect of low-level exposure to OPs over a long period can be damaging to health, but it remains a matter of concern. The British Association of Air Line Pilots has done much to identify such problems among pilots and other aircrew and much valuable international work has also been done.
The Minister for the Environment responded to my inquiries. His letter to me stated:
The number of reported incidents per annum of smoke, odours, fumes etc. entering UK aircraft flight decks or passenger cabins over the past five years c r so has increased from 81 in 1996 to 156 in 1999, and 124 to date in the year 2000.
The letter was written on 30 November and there may have been further incidents subsequently. He properly went on to say:
Some increase with time is to be expected due to the combined effects of an increase in airline traffic and the growing profile of cabin air quality issues.
He referred specifically to incidents occurring in aircraft known as the BAe 146. That aircraft is used, incidentally, by the Queen's Flight, which explains the high-profile interest in its performance. As the manufacturers and operators of the BAe 146 have rightly emphasised, the problem is not exclusive to that particular aircraft: others share the same problem.
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
Of more concern are the reports that some incidents with the BAe 146 have not had strong cues to alert the pilots as to why they are feeling unwell. Seven such incidents are known to us, four in Australia, two in the UK and one in Sweden. These events are of great concern and, with the CAA we are closely monitoring the investigations being carried out in this area.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us a progress report on the monitoring of these international incidents.
The House of Lords inquiry briefly examined air quality, but its attention was concentrated more on DVT. That is a high-profile issue, so I would not complain that little attention was paid to air quality and its effect on passengers and aircrew. However, at about the same time, a Senate inquiry in Australia investigated air quality in BAe 146 aircraft. During the summer, I had the privilege of meeting the chairman of that inquiry, Senator John Woodley. I also have the full report. Will the Minister give an assurance that the conclusions of that report—much more specific than the House of Lords report—will be taken fully into account in assessing any necessary changes in public policy in this country? Will he tell us what advice should be given to operators of the BAe and similar aircraft?
The work that has now been done by the OP Information Network—an excellent voluntary organisation—to analyse the studies being undertaken

25WH
in different parts of the world should alert the Minister and the Department to the need for some speedy analysis of all this international work.
I shall make two points about the overall context in which the debate is taking place and its importance. I understand that of the 1,000 deaths in flight and on board worldwide, more are due to heart attacks than to accidents. I do not think that the general public recognises the significance of that. It is far more likely that one's health will be affected by the quality of the air, the conditions in the cabin and the way in which we are herded together than that one will be the victim of any form of accident. It is also important to recognise—this came out in the contributions from the hon. Members for Norwich, North and for Vale of Glamorgan—that certain people are more susceptible to ill health. For example, those who have any sort of respiratory problem are much more likely to be affected by air flight. The experience of the Lufthansa medical director, Dr. Luntz Bergkau is extremely relevant. He pointed out:
What passengers do not realise is that they fly in an artificial environment where there might be up to 20-25 per cent. less oxygen. This is equivalent to being on the top of a mountain and for people with heart or lung conditions, it can tip them into a crisis phrase.
This is an extremely important issue. I do not wish to detain the Chamber any longer. I hope that we shall receive a full response from the Minister. I hope that he will take it from those of us who have spoken that there is real concern about these issues across the House. We look to the Government to take a lead.
11.11 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for initiating the debate and for the responsible way in which he did so. I was sorry to hear of his wife's experience and I am glad to hear that she has now recovered. I was particularly sorry to hear of the tragic case described by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith).
The health aspects of air travel are of considerable importance and the debate is timely. Not only is it a matter of substantial public concern, but the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has recently published its report on air travel and health. We are giving detailed consideration to those recommendations that are addressed to Government and we hope to publish our response soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North is a scientist, and I am sure that he would agree that it is important to keep a sense of perspective on this issue. It might be helpful if I referred briefly to the wholly irresponsible article on the front page of the Daily Express this morning, which is based, as far as I can see, on the comments of a Mr. Farrol Khan. To our knowledge, Mr. Khan has never produced any firm evidence for his claims. He was one of those interviewed by the House of Lords Select Committee, which carried out a careful study, as hon. Members have noted. Other medical experts reported in the article dismiss Mr. Khan's proposals. The House of Lords Select Committee used words like "nonsense" and "carelessness with facts" when describing his evidence and added that
26WH
we have been concerned at the confused thinking, lack of substance and erroneous statements in some of the other material presented to us and the public by Mr. Khan, the Institute's founder director—
indeed, he may be the only member of this so-called institute. The report goes on:
In spite of his evident enthusiasm for his cause, sadly we have not found him to be a reliable source of scientific and medical information.
I do not want to make too much of it, but front-page stories based on evidence from Mr. Khan should be accompanied by the health warning of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, not mine or that of any other Minister.
The Government welcomed the House of Lords inquiry and I pay tribute to their lordships for the in-depth consideration of the health risks that may be increased by air travel. Although there are undoubtedly some causes for concern, the topic has been the subject of much speculation and, in some cases that I mentioned, ill-informed comment. The Committee is to be congratulated on the sense of perspective that it brought to some complex issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and others referred to several different types of health risk that might be posed by air travel, and I shall take each in turn. First, the possibility that travelling by plane increases the likelihood of deep vein thrombosis must be, and is, treated extremely seriously. Air travel, in common with some other means of transport, can involve long periods of immobility, which has long been known to increase susceptibility to DVT. However, it is important to establish whether factors specific to the aircraft cabin environment increase that risk. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred to the smaller amount of oxygen available at height. At present, there is no definitive answer to the question; much research information is available but the findings often conflict. In practice, it is extremely difficult to identify how many cases of DVT are attributable, wholly or in part, to air travel. Given that lack of clarity, I support the House of Lords recommendation that research be carried out to establish with certainty whether the aircraft cabin environment increases the risk of DVT and, if so, to what degree.
The Government-funded study that I announced when giving evidence to the Committee last June will draw together and assess existing research on the subject and make recommendations on how further research can best be targeted. In the light of that preliminary work, the Government will initiate whatever research is necessary to obtain a clear picture of the relationship between air travel and DVT. The parameters and structures of that further research will depend on the outcome of the present study, but the aim will be to clarify the links between DVT and the cabin environment. When the research is complete, we should be able to take decisions backed by a genuine understanding of the risks and contributory factors, rather than on the basis of speculation. In the meantime, the industry and the Government are focusing on ensuring that information and advice are made available to passengers before and during flights and that that is as consistent and authoritative as possible, given the existing knowledge.

27WH
I am aware that United Kingdom airlines are pursing strategies to inform their passengers. Last week, British Airways announced that it would issue a leaflet to all its customers. A welcome effect of the flurry of media attention and of debates such as this is the increased awareness that they produce in the travelling public. The Government are contributing to that process by expanding their information leaflets. The most recent pamphlet on health advice to travellers, which is being revised to take account of what we now know about air travel, had a print run of 12 million. If my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North had difficulty in finding a copy, it was not for want of trying. The document is being revised and a new version will be published shortly, which gives far more attention to the matters that we are discussing. We are anxious that all parties should have a consistent message on which to draw.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned air quality. First, I thank him for his generous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern that the air that circulates on board aircraft may be hazardous to health in several ways. Among the issues raised at different times are ventilation, filtration, humidity and the possibility of transmitted infection. I shall not go into each of those, although any added risks that are specifically attributable to flying clearly need to be isolated.
The House of Lords Committee made some helpful recommendations in that regard. A good deal of detailed work is going on throughout the world to test air quality on board aircraft and suggest improvements or better standards. We and the industry are following that work closely. The study to which I alluded should identify any gaps in existing knowledge about air quality and guide us on whether to promote further research, or whether any regulatory changes are needed.
On organophosphates, one aspect of air quality referred to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall as a particular concern is related to reports that fumes from aircraft engine lubricating oil leak into the air conditioning system, posing a risk to the health of passengers or crew. In this context, I note the comment in the House of Lords report:
The absence of confirmed cases of tri-ortho-cresyl phosphate poisoning … lead us to conclude that the concerns about significant risk to the health of airline passengers and crew are not substantiated.
I have also confirmed that, while a small number of incidents involving such fumes leaking into the cabins of UK-registered aircraft were reported to the Civil Aviation Authority during the year to June 2000, none was deemed to pose a threat to health or safety. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, we cannot be complacent. We have access to the report from the Australian Senate, to which he referred, and we are considering its recommendations carefully. The CAA is also monitoring closely the Swedish investigation. When the outcome is available, we shall consider it carefully.
As regards information for passengers, the House of Lords report is refreshingly comprehensive in dealing with such issues. I do not propose to go into detail, but
28WH
if one message above all is coming out loud and clear from the Committee, it is that passengers should have access, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, to authoritative, precise information that allows them to make informed choices before travelling. That is a message that I fully endorse.
I have already referred to information on DVT. I have described the steps that we are taking to provide passengers—both before they book their ticket and during flights—with information and advice to help them make their own decisions and minimise the risks. If it emerges that regulation on health grounds is necessary, we will not hesitate to act, but a trade-off between price and comfort is not an appropriate area for regulation.
Many people are prepared to put up with some discomfort if it means that air fares are within their financial reach. For some passengers, air travel is a far more stressful and worrying activity than it is for others. The key aim is that people should have adequate information available to them so that they can make the choices that best suit them. However, I take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said about, for example, exercises that can be performed at one's seat. We are subject to various other bits of information during flights. Why should that information not be given too?
The House of Lords report set in motion a valuable debate on a wide range of health issues. The Government have a role to play. We will endeavour to disseminate information, to help to close the gaps in our knowledge that currently hamper action in this area and to work with industry so that it provides passengers with the standards of safety and comfort that they are entitled to expect. Where necessary, we will regulate, although our preference is to avoid regulation where we can achieve the same effect by other means.
I accept that there is an issue of joined-up government. We need to create a suitable structure to deal with an issue that spans several parts of the Government. For that reason, we intend to establish a standing inter-departmental group, which will take forward the House of Lords recommendations on which the Government are to act, steer the current research project to which I referred earlier, monitor other developments on air travel and health and provide advice to Ministers on the way ahead. When I gave evidence before the Lords Committee, I did so accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, so some joined-up government was present from the outset. The group to which I referred will consist of officials in my Department, the Department of Health, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. It will work closely with the airlines and other parties with an interest in air travel and health.
I should say something about the role of the airline industry. It is important for the Government to play their part, but airlines must accept that they have the principal role, both in minimising risk and in providing effective information to their passengers before they fly.
In his speech late last year, when he launched the Government' s consultation document "The Future of Aviation", my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport set out a number of challenges for United

29WH
Kingdom airlines to boost standards of service for passengers. One challenge calls on airlines to provide better information on health issues. My right hon. and noble Friend will shortly convene a meeting of airlines and other interested parties to provide an opportunity for the industry to explain how it will respond to that and other challenges. We are on the case.
This is an important issue and hon. Members are right to stress that there are no grounds for complacency. However, I hope that they will accept that we must keep the matter in perspective. No form of travel is risk free and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan said, knowledge of the problem has existed since the second world war, before the days of mass air travel. The key problem is prolonged periods of immobility, and during the war that arose in bomb shelters underground.
Mr. John Smith: I accept that and I accept that more research is necessary into cabin atmosphere to discover whether it is a contributory factor. However, there is a qualitative difference between air travel and other forms of travel in which the opportunity to take exercise and to relieve discomfort is greater. We should not lose sight of that fact.
Mr. Mullin: I entirely accept that. All parties, including the Government, regulators, airlines and passengers, have a role in assessing and minimising the risks involved in air travel. I am a journalist by profession, and the media also have a responsibility to report the matter with accuracy and balance, which has not always been the case. There is a pressing need to obtain and disseminate accurate and comprehensive information, and my hon. Friends can rest assured that the Government will play their full part in the process.

Teacher Shortages (Essex)
11.28 am
Mr. John Whittingdale: I am most grateful for the opportunity to debate the crisis facing schools in Essex, which is causing considerable concern to heads, teachers and parents throughout the county. It is a measure of the gravity of the situation that a number of my colleagues in the county are here today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith).
The severe shortage of teachers does not affect Essex alone. It is a national problem about which my hon. Friends have warned the Government for a considerable time. In May last year, we chose to use an Opposition day to highlight the pressures on teachers, which were driving so many of them out of the profession. In October, we again used Opposition time to debate the growing crisis of teacher supply and recruitment. During that debate, the Secretary of State said that there was no crisis and, by sticking his head in the sand, he has allowed the situation to continue to deteriorate.
Two weeks ago, the director of learning services in Essex, Mr. Paul Lincoln, wrote to the Secretary of State. He did so expressly at the request of Essex head teachers, not of any Member of Parliament. In his letter, he expressed the increasing concern of heads about their severe difficulties in recruiting qualified teachers to fill posts at all levels. He pointed out that the problem has seriously worsened in the past year, with vacancy and turnover rates increasing in all sectors, and that consequently
headteachers are increasingly feeling demoralised and frustrated that, despite their best efforts, they cannot secure the teachers they need.
He concludes that

these problems have a significant impact on the quality of education provided by schools.
The letter received considerable coverage in the national press, accompanied by the warning that in some schools the teacher shortage had become so severe that they might have to consider the introduction of a four-day week. The reaction of the Labour group at county hall was to say that those warnings were unjustified and hysterical. Their response exactly matches that of the Prime Minister to the concerns that are expressed nationally—which was described by the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers as "incredibly complacent".
Yesterday, I spoke to seven head teachers in my constituency, all of whom endorsed Paul Lincoln's letter and said that, if anything, it understated the seriousness of the position. Most of the schools in my constituency have managed to fill their vacancies. As one primary head said to me, they cannot have vacancies because that means classes with no teachers, so they have found ways to mask the problem.
Every head had similar stories—for example, of teachers having to teach classes in subjects in which they were utterly unqualified. A Colchester teacher told me at the weekend that she was teaching German to pupils although she does not speak German. She is now being

31WH
offered a post as head of science at another school, despite being a history teacher with an O-level in biology. Other schools have relied on supply teachers to fill posts, with the result that even agencies are sometimes unable to meet demand and are giving out telephone numbers for teachers in South Africa and Canada, whom schools are expected to ring up. Poaching of teachers is now taking place among schools in Essex. No head teacher wants to do that, but they are being forced into it by the impossibility of recruiting suitably qualified staff.
The head of the Plume school in Maldon told me that, although she had managed to fill her vacant posts, she could do so only by inviting applications by fax or e-mail and filling the posts as soon as they were received— or, in the case of one maths teacher, by paying for a taxi to bring him straight from a job interview at another school. She told me that the lack of supply teachers meant that she could no longer release staff for training or allow teachers to take pupils on trips, and that the only advantage of the situation was that she no longer has to read 30 applications for a post, because she is lucky if she receives three.
At the County high school for girls in Chelmsford— which is one of the very best schools in the country— four applications were received for a post to teach English, but by the time of the interview three candidates had already found other jobs. At St. Peter's high school in Burnham, a vacant English post garnered no applications at all and had to be filled from a supply agency. The head told me that she could not remember a time when the situation was so bad.
The problems are even worse in the primary sector. At Beehive lane primary school in Chelmsford, the head teacher arranged sets of interviews on three occasions, only to find that every applicant already had a job by the day of the interview. Consequently, she is having to offer jobs as soon as applications are received. Even so, there was one day before Christmas when three classes had no teacher because no supply teachers were available.
At Heybridge county primary, a teacher left at Christmas with the result that the class faced the prospect of four different teachers in the space of one week. Although the school is managing, the head told me that if there were a staff illness—or, worse still, a flu outbreak—they would have real difficulty in coping.
At Great Totham primary, the head told me that five years ago he received 160 applications for every vacancy. Two years ago, the number had fallen to 80, and standards had also declined. There were about 20 applications last year, but on advertising a couple of vacancies last term, he received just six applications. He said that
the situation is getting desperate; the Government is living in cloud cuckoo land if it says that there is no crisis.
Perhaps most serious of all is the situation in the special schools. One school in Braintree has been unable to appoint a head teacher for a year. A school in Colchester had to close a primary class because it was unable to recruit a teacher. A school in Loughton has been relying on supply teachers, but that source has dried up, so it is obliged to consider moving to a four-day week.
32WH
The situation is desperate. Experienced and highly qualified teachers are leaving the profession in droves. Those who are entering with one year's postgraduate training are neither sufficient, nor sufficiently experienced, to replace them. Every head I spoke to agreed, however, that money is not the problem. Time and again, they said that the problem is a collapse in morale resulting from the pressures of the job. One head told me that he has given up counting the number of times that he has lost teachers who say that they want their life back. Some have given up permanent positions to become supply teachers, for whom there are the same rewards, but without the pressures of planning, assessments and additional responsibilities associated with permanent members of staff. He summed up the problem when he said that there is not a teacher shortage, but an acute shortage of qualified teachers who are still willing to teach.
Therefore, it is all the more tragic when teachers who want to teach are prevented from doing so by bureaucracy. I shall mention two cases, about which I have written to the Minister, involving teachers at the Plume school, in Maldon. Richard Marshall, an electronics graduate, has been prevented from enrolling in the graduate training scheme because he is just a few months younger than the minimum age of 24. On writing to the Teacher Training Agency to ask whether he could join the scheme this year, he was told that he could not because he was not sufficiently mature, even though, as he pointed out, it is possible to be a fully qualified teacher at the age of 22.
The second case, involving Marita Ponting, has been publicised not only in local papers but in the national media. She has worked as a librarian and a learning support assistant at Plume school, but is now proving to be a very promising teacher of maths—for which, as the Minister will know, there is an extreme teacher shortage. However, because her degree is in psychology, rather than maths, her application to enrol on the graduate training scheme has been turned down.
Of course, I accept that it would be better if she had a maths degree. If lots of people were applying to be maths teachers, I could perhaps understand the TTA saying that she has not complied with its rules. However, the reality is that schools cannot afford the luxury of waiting for the right degree, particularly in respect of maths. As the head of Plume school pointed out, the suggestion that the head of the maths faculty should assess her mathematical ability would have proved problematic, given that his degree is in music. Surely what matters is that Marita Ponting is already proving to be a highly skilled maths teacher who wants to teach. Once again, because of bureaucracy, both she and Richard Marshall are being denied the opportunity to participate in graduate training schemes.
The crisis affecting Essex schools is real. Clearly, it is not restricted to Essex, but it is particularly acute throughout the county. That is borne out by every head and every teacher in Essex, and the problem is getting worse. Through superhuman effort, heads are just about managing to keep their schools going, but there is no doubt that standards are being affected, opportunities for pupils are being lost, and the strain on teaching staff is forcing more and more out of the profession. The sticking plaster will not stick for much longer. The Government must act and act now.
11.39 am
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on securing this debate and I wholeheartedly agree with every word that he uttered. It is a long time since I was a teacher and I would not relish returning to the vocation. Nevertheless, teachers do a magnificent job under difficult circumstances.
My belief that teaching is a vocation is at the heart of today's debate. This afternoon, I shall visit St. Thomas More high school, which, like Eastwood school, has made a successful capital bid. On a pleasant note, I wish to thank the Minister for that. However, I am disappointed that our grammar school, Southend high school for boys, was unsuccessful in its capital bid. I hope that it is successful next time
My hon. Friend was motivated to apply for the debate because he felt that Conservative-controlled Essex county council's position was being misrepresented. It is a travesty. Essex county council is Conservative only in that we hold the casting vote, so Liberal and Labour councillors have been able to foist their views on the council in setting its budget. The situation on the council has been distorted, especially at Prime Minister's questions.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is worth pointing out that the Government think that Essex county council spends too much on education. It spends in excess of the standard spending assessment, but if it spent in line with that there would be further education cuts in Essex.
Mr. Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is a shame that one cannot intervene at Prime Minister's questions when a different light is put on the matter. I pay tribute to county councillor Mrs. Iris Pummell, who has done a magnificent job under difficult circumstances. She says that it is not the political debate that she is interested in, but the education of our children.
The Minister and I had a brief exchange at Education questions last week, when she referred to the situation in Southend. We have 23 vacant primary school posts and 38 vacant secondary school posts, so we have been forced to recruit in South Africa and Australia. There is nothing wrong with recruiting from those countries because they tend to produce good teachers, but we have been put in a situation where we have had to recruit without knowing the calibre of applicants.
When I questioned the Minister about the teacher shortage, I pointed out that Southend did not qualify for extra money because more than 25 per cent. of our children achieved passes at grades A to C. She replied that money had been allocated regardless of that and that it could be used for recruitment. I have checked that with our excellent chairman of education in Southend, Mrs. Sally Carr. As the Minister and her officials know, if we had not put the money that was allocated to Southend into particular projects, many schools would be in dire circumstances. She might say that that money could have been used to recruit teachers, but we were struggling with other problems.
34WH
We do not qualify for other funds because less than 35 per cent. of our children are on free school meals. The Minister has the best interests of our children at heart, but it is quite wrong—I know that she said that we must help the parts of the country in most difficulty—that children in Southend do not receive help. It is good that our children are doing a little better than other parts of the country. Why are the Government unable to address our particular problems?
In Essex, last year, turnover of teachers in primary schools increased from 14.5 per cent. to 18.7 per cent., which is very large indeed. In our special schools, the increase is 30 per cent., and 43 per cent. of teachers who left permanent teaching posts left within the first 18 months. That is worrying for us all. The turnover for secondary schools in Essex increased by 38 per cent. in the academic year and the highest number of vacancies are in English, maths and craft, design and technology. That is not scaremongering—those are the facts.
Some of us will have read the article in the Sunday Telegraph this weekend about Mrs. Marian Williams, who is, I understand, a Labour activist and apparently an adviser to a Labour European Member of Parliament. She tells us in the article that she has always been opposed to private schools on principle, but that because of her circumstances she has had to put that to one side for her children. I am a fellow Catholic. Unfortunately the Catholic school to which she sends her children has difficulties and she has had to turn to private education. The head of a Catholic school in Essex has said that he blames the Government's failure to reward or to value teachers for the haemorrhage of staff from the profession.
Education, education, education—slogans, slogans, slogans. The Labour party manifesto in May 1997 did not say, "We want you to vote for us but, when you have a Labour Government, because of what has happened over the past 18 years, it will take us at least a decade to deliver the things we want." It gave the impression that, if the general public voted Labour, on health, education, transport and a range of other problems, everything would be put right, but that is not the case.
In every part of Essex, which is supposed to be a leafy, affluent county, there are vacancies. Why is that? Why did the Government not forecast that there would be problems? Why is it only now, just before an election, that there is such huge activity? People are right to be cynical. The Government made a great mistake in criticising so many of our hard-working teachers, in undervaluing them and in sending out endless directives and initiatives from central Government. I hope that the Minister will now do everything that she possibly can to support county councillor Mrs. Iris Pummell and to take action about the teacher shortage in Essex.
11.47 am
Angela Smith: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on securing it. I hope that I shall be able to spread some light rather than heat on the subject.
Following a meeting with my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Harwich (Mr. Henderson), we went to a meeting at county hall with Mr. Paul Lincoln, director of learning services.

35WH
Given the debate on the issue, we felt that our role as Members of Parliament was to contribute and to help to find a solution to the difficulties and problems. It was a productive and useful meeting and I shall report back to the Minister on how it went and what we can do to help.
It was interesting to hear from Mr. Paul Lincoln that he had not said that Essex schools were to go on to a four-day week. Indeed, he stressed that that was not the case. Those comments were made in the Evening Echo in Basildon by Mrs. Iris Pummell, about whom we have just heard. She also said in the Evening Echo that she felt so strongly about the issue—all credit to her for that; she should feel strongly about education—that she had contacted the Members of Parliament about it.
Representing a constituency with one of the highest turnovers of teaching staff in the county, I was disappointed that Mrs. Pummell had not contacted me. I thought that her letter to me might be lost in the post and checked with my Labour colleagues in the House, but they had not heard from Mrs. Pummell either. I then contacted the leader of the Labour group on the county council, who had not received a communication from her either. I regret that the debate entered the public arena and the press before the matter could be debated in the council first.
I am aware of the difficulties that are faced by head teachers. I pay tribute to the head teachers in my constituency, who have worked extremely hard to ensure good staff for their schools. Mr. Alan Roach of Chalvedon school in Pitsea, which is outside my constituency but is the school that I attended as a child, and Linda Kingston of Fairhouse school travelled to New Zealand and Australia during their summer holidays to recruit good staff and have been impressed with the standard of the staff who have come back with them. I shall touch on the difficulties that remain with regard to accommodation for those staff and ask the Minister to deal with them. It is worth noting that, last year, Chalvedon school recruited a teacher who won the new teacher of the year award. That shows the school's commitment to good-quality staff and high-quality teaching.
I pay tribute to the work by teachers in my constituency, but I am aware that, when there are shortages and teachers have to cover for other teachers, or when heads are trying to recruit in difficult circumstances, it places the teachers under additional pressure. We should pay tribute to those staff, not denigrate them.
With my colleagues, I visited many schools in our constituencies during the summer recess. September gives us the ideal opportunity to do that. No Member of Parliament can be unaware of the difficulties that schools face, but I take issue with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, who said that they were faced by every school and every head. I found a mixed picture: some schools were not experiencing such difficulties, but others were. Much of it had to do with the contacts that heads had built with training schools, past staff or staff who stay a long time, but in some schools there was a serious problem. Those schools need the help and support of every hon. Member and the county council. I am disappointed at the way in which
36WH
the matter has been handled by the county council and indeed expressed that disappointment to Mr. Lincoln at my meeting on Friday.
I got the impression from Mrs. Pummell's original comments in the paper that there was an imminent crisis and that dozens of schools were about to go on to a four-day week.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady is doing Mrs. Pummell a disservice because she said that only two schools in Essex faced the possibility of a four-day week. To suggest, as she does, that Mrs. Pummell referred to dozens is wrong.
Angela Smith: I am grateful for that intervention. Had the hon. Gentleman been patient, he would have heard me come to that point. Had Mrs. Pummell said that in the article in the Evening Echo, I would agree. I understand that the comment about two schools came in a press release that was issued today, which has been faxed to me by the county council. It says that the three and four-day week was almost a reality in two schools, one of which was a church school, which has found it difficult to recruit, given its policy of recruiting staff of the same faith. I pay tribute to the county council for avoiding four-day weeks in those two schools.
The other thing that concerns me is the impression that has been given by the publicity that Essex has a more serious problem than anywhere else in the country—that Essex is a terrible place in which to work and a difficult place in which to teach. It is not. That must be put strongly on the record. I fear that the publicity and the way in which the matter has been handled by certain members of the county council have created future recruitment and retention difficulties, which I regret. I am sure that that was not the aim. We do not want the problem to be compounded by the actions of those in the county council who sought to make political capital out of it.
I was concerned—I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on the matter—that one of the comments in the Basildon Evening Echo article was that the budget for staff recruitment had already been spent. Essex county council had given £700,000 from the education budget to other departments to balance the books. It seems a bit rich to complain that the recruitment budget had been used up when money was transferred from the budget.
We must not dwell on what has happened, but must look to the future and at what can be done to ease the situation. We have established that it is not as serious as the fears of a four-day week in every school in Essex at first suggested, but certainly some teachers who make great efforts and do a sterling job in trying to recruit staff face serious problems.
Mr. Jenkin: What would the hon. Lady say to the head teacher of West Bergholt primary school, which also has infant classes, which recently advertised a post nationally? The one applicant was recruited to another job before the school had a chance to interview him. Does she consider that acceptable for Essex schools? Essex is a wonderful place to teach. Think how much worse the problems must be in other parts of the country such as central London.
Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun. Of course I am not suggesting that it is an

37WH
acceptable situation—no one would say that. I said that there was a problem, but it is not as bad as stated in some of the reports that have been issued by members of the county council.
I am saddened that no hon. Members have looked to the future to consider what can be done. If there is a problem, the way forward is to try to find a solution to it. Mr. Lincoln, whom I met on Friday, sent a survey to head teachers to ask them what would be useful in easing their recruitment problems. He has started to receive responses, which we offered to present to the Minister on his behalf. I should like to put one issue to her: housing.
Housing in the south-east is extremely expensive. We often hear teachers who are interested in taking up posts say that they cannot afford to buy and find it difficult to find somewhere to rent. In the 1970s, many teachers were attracted to teach in Basildon by the offer of accommodation from the council and housing associations. A housing allowance for those taking up jobs in the south-east could improve the situation considerably. Teachers and head teachers in the west Basildon area have told me that it would make a great difference to them. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to meet the Members of Parliament who took part in Friday's meeting to take forward such proposals.
I welcome the news in today's newspapers about the rise in teaching recruitment. The primary problem is that of insufficient investment in the past—if that investment had been made, we would probably not be facing these problems. We must find a way forward to ensure that teachers have a choice of good-quality staff, which is what we want for all our schools.
11.57 am
Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), especially as I disagree with so much of what she said. On her last point about teacher recruitment, it is a problem not of recruitment, but of retention—too many teachers are leaving the profession. There is no great problem in filling vacancies with newly qualified teachers, but no school can operate properly unless it has experienced teachers with many years of service under their belt to help and to guide newly qualified teachers.
I recently had the opportunity to meet all the head teachers and chairmen of governors of my local secondary schools. I had a similar meeting with primary schools just before Christmas. We met against the backdrop of the letter by the county councillor, Mrs. Iris Pummell, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) referred. I join him in congratulating Mrs. Pummell on the work that she has done to avert a crisis. It is wrong to criticise someone who has worked so hard. If she were treating the matter as a political football, as has been suggested, she would simply have let the problem get worse, but she has put a lot of effort into making the situation better and she deserves our credit.
When I spoke to the head teachers, they, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), repeated the Prime Minister's mantra about education, education and education, but pointed out that in their experience it actually meant teachers, teachers, teachers. They said that in that respect they were faced with an Elastoplast, Sellotape and make-do policy.
38WH
Essex is an attractive place, although some pockets are less so than others. One of the more attractive, in terms of types of schools and children who are taught, is Brentwood. Brentwood is a prosperous area. If it faces recruitment problems, there must be a crisis in the county. It does indeed face such problems. Numbers are significantly down and quality is significantly down. People are being appointed to posts for which they are not qualified, whether academically or in terms of teaching experience. They may have a degree or teaching experience in a subject that is entirely different from that which they are appointed to teach.
We heard about telephone numbers being handed out. On Friday, I spoke to a head teacher in Brentwood who had just concluded a telephone interview with a teacher in Australia. That teacher may well be experienced and potentially a great asset, but I doubt whether we would be entirely happy if the same procedure were adopted for a teacher resident in the United Kingdom. We would rightly want to meet that teacher to examine references and to ask various questions. A telephone interview with a teacher in Australia is less than satisfactory.
I asked about the quality of teachers who have participated in the process. It is true that some are very good, but others are absolutely appalling. One head said that appointing a teacher in that way had probably been a mistake; the person concerned could not maintain discipline in class. The problem was made worse by the need permanently to keep a senior member of school management in the class to maintain discipline. That simply is not good enough.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford on one small point. He said that money was not the issue, but to a degree it is. Staffing costs are being spread across school budgets, so that more money can be spent on staffing. The percentage varies considerably, but in the worst case staffing costs have jumped from 82 per cent. to 93 per cent. As a result, less money is available for the teaching of children.
Some people might reasonably say, "Hold on a minute. Surely it's a good thing that more money is being spent on teachers." However, the money is being spent not on teachers but agency fees, because the only way that heads can reasonably deal with the teaching crisis is to approach teaching agencies. Frankly, I find the figures surprising. A newly qualified teacher gets a salary of about £16,000, in addition to which— depending on how long the teacher stays—there is an agency fee of about £8,000. That £8,000 simply disappears from the education system. It could be spent on equipment, books or additional learning facilities, but instead it goes straight out of the window. According to head teachers, the current system is particularly vulnerable to those whom they describe as cowboys. People are getting involved in the process who should not even be there.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, teachers are leaving the profession because an enormous burden is being placed on them. Not so long ago, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that, whenever he met teachers, he heard cries to cut bureaucracy so that they could do their jobs. Whenever I meet teachers, they say, "I've just had another piece of paper from the Department and I

39WH
simply cannot cope." According to head teachers, the Department has made a genuine attempt to cut the number of papers that it issues to heads. One way to do that is to post them on the web alone, so that teachers must surf the web to obtain hard copy. However, the problem is not the paper; it is the burden.
All our secondary schools in Brentwood and Ongar were grant maintained and had greater flexibility, but the Government have stripped them of that. Essex county council is benign and devolves as much power as possible to schools, but they have less power than previously under the grant-maintained system. The Government must explain why, when there was a system in which devolved power provided greater flexibility in matters such as staffing and greater ability to use resources for pupils and parents, they replaced it with a system that provided less power. The present system is materially worse than the previous system. That places a heavy burden on the Government to explain. It is not acceptable for the Government and Labour Members in Essex to say, "Crisis? What crisis?"
12.6 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I join my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on securing this debate on an important issue at an important time. Most of my hon. Friends have made the important points that needed to be made, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), with whom I usually agree.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) said forcefully that the debate should not consist of political point scoring and I agree. Who said what in local newspapers is irrelevant. What matters to the people of Essex and the pupils who are being educated in our schools in Essex are the facts, not the political spin and soundbites on those facts. No hon. Members have disagreed and I am sure that the Minister will not disagree with the facts that have been put before us today.
One of the most important facts that we must face is that it is not only the shortage of teachers in Essex, as throughout the country, that is causing a problem, but that we are now facing the beginning of a crisis due to the turnover in teachers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said, the problem is not so much recruitment as retention. The enormous rise in turnover is the most worrying problem facing head teachers in my constituency.
One problem that arises from the huge increase in turnover is the vast increase in supply teachers. Head teachers in whom I have great faith and confidence and who work hard in my constituency and produce very good results have told me that, when a long-term supply teacher is in charge of a class of pupils, they do not make progress—they are taught, but they stand still and do not progress. The Minister knows a lot about education and I shall be interested to know what she has to say about that, because it is particularly worrying.
The other problem that concerns head teachers in my constituency is why young teachers are leaving the profession so soon after being recruited. Money is not
40WH
the only reason, although it is important because the pay differential between Epping Forest and the London boroughs is bad, but house prices are the same. Since the travel-to-work difference between the London boroughs and my constituency is in some cases only two miles, it is not surprising that we suffer. The important question, to which the hon. Member for Basildon referred, is how to solve the problem and what is the way forward.
The answer is that teachers are leaving the profession not because of pay or conditions, but because of low morale, largely because they are asked to undertake so much form filling and bureaucracy. These young people decided to follow their vocation because they wanted to teach. Teaching is what they want to do; teaching is what they are willing to do, but they are not willing to spend hours and hours a week filling in forms and keeping up to date with the Government's extra red tape, which is continually being heaped on.
We all know that that is the problem, but the hon. Member for Basildon did not address it and I am not surprised since the Labour Government are the cause. Teachers in Epping Forest want to be allowed to teach. If, in their professional capacity, we allow them to do so and take away the red tape and bureaucracy, we will begin to solve the problem.
12.10 p.m.
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and his colleagues on securing this debate. I want to put on record to begin with that there is no one inside or outside the House who does not see this as a vital subject. It is dear to the hearts of parents and politicians because the future of the nation and our aspirations for it lie in the hands of its children. How they grow up and take over the mantle depends very much on schools. Nothing that I say diminishes the importance of the subject, nor takes away from the real and genuine concern of many hon. Members.
Against that context, I shall explore some of the issues, argue with a few points and indicate some promising signs that the measures we have taken so far may be having a good effect. As a former teacher, it gives me no pride or pleasure to say that there is an historic problem with teacher recruitment and retention. That does not excuse previous Labour Governments nor, certainly, Conservative ones. If we were to plot a map of the economic fortunes of the country, sadly, it would show that we only recruit well to teaching in times of decline. The truth is that for decades, when the country has done well and when graduates, young or not so young, have had a choice, they have not chosen teaching as a career. That is where the difficulty lies for many schools and local authorities.
We need a fundamental short, medium and long-term change in the way that we view, recruit and retain teachers and applaud the work that they do. This is not about quick fixes, nor about playing clever games with figures in any two-year or even 10-year period. We have to acknowledge that, as a nation, we have undervalued teachers for far too long and we have to invest in their development and everything that they need to be successful.
Against that background I shall put on record a point about the matters raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and her colleagues and my hon.

41WH
Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). In Essex, despite the problems that teachers there may think that they have, there have been major achievements in the past three years. With the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools in Essex, we have seen results for English improve by 11 per cent., for maths by 15 per cent. and for science also by 15 per cent. Given that there is considerable affluence in some parts of Essex, as well as some poverty and difficulties, the fact that they have improved by at least or faster than the national average from a relatively high starting point is a real tribute.
I point that out, first, to pay tribute to the teachers, but secondly, to reassure people that whatever the problems are in Essex and elsewhere at the moment, the truth is that teachers in schools—whether they be supply teachers, teachers from overseas, or Essex born and bred—are delivering the goods for children. That must be acknowledged. Therefore, I give them my thanks. I know that it has meant more paper work, more training and more upheaval in how and what they teach, but it has increased the basic skills of literacy, numeracy and science that we all want for our children and our constituents' children.
I acknowledge that there is a problem. The hon. Members who spoke represent constituencies with particular problems because they are in areas of high housing cost. That presents a challenge for a profession that has a national pay scale and that has never had a pay structure that reflects different housing costs in different parts of the country. Therefore, although other parts of the country face difficulties, the south-east, London and schools that face especially challenging circumstances have the additional problem of housing costs.
Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Lady has said two things that imply that teachers are under paid. She said, first, that teachers have been undervalued for decades and can be recruited only at times of economic decline and, secondly, that in many parts of the country they cannot afford the housing that is available to them. What is her reaction to the Scottish Executive's decision to pay substantial salary increases to teachers, funded by taxpayers' money from England because the money that Scotland spends is very much funded by English taxpayers? Does she think that that will exacerbate the problem?
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. Interventions should be brief.
Ms Morris: I notice a difference of opinion among Conservative Members as to whether the real issue is pay.
Mr. Jenkin: Answer the question.
Ms Morris: I am about to answer it. In view of the length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, he should at least give me half a sentence to get to the reply.
Hon. Members were right to say that the problem is not just about pay, but about other things. It is about the quality of the working environment and, above all, whether we see our children learn. That is the real
42WH
reward for a teacher: everything is worth while if, at the end of the day, the kids progress. In the survey published in the Times Educational Supplement on Friday, teachers say that there has been extra work and the job is more stressful, but it is still worth while.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to go into pay, I should remind him that the Conservative Government staged pay increases year after year, whereas the present Government have not staged a pay increase since we came to power. We have given above-inflation pay increases every year. The Government introduced threshold payments, so for the first time, teachers will be able to receive pay increases and access a new pay scale for staying in the classroom to teach, which they could not do before. Until we introduced the present performance-related pay, teachers had to leave the classroom and take on administrative responsibilities if they wanted further pay increases. That is the difference.
To return to some of the things that we have done, when I opened the debate, I was honest and did not say that there was not a problem. The question is, what have we been doing about it. That is what we must account for today. We are not taking a Johnny-come-lately approach: we are not reading a letter from Paul Lincoln or anyone else and then deciding to respond to it. In the past three years, the Government have systematically and carefully, with conviction, commitment and resources, invested in recruitment and retention and enhancement of the teaching profession, and the evidence shows that what we have done is beginning to work. Even that does not detract from the problems that I know exist.
Let me trace what we have done. Three years ago, in 1998, we introduced the golden hellos—real money to recruit people who would teach in shortage subjects— and the scheme worked. In the first year of golden hellos, we saw the first increase in teachers going into maths training for many a year. We can play with figures, but from 1992 onwards there had been a decline, year on year, in the number of people going into teacher training. Crucially, after the introduction of the golden hellos we stemmed that decline. It was not at a time of economic decline or by relying on the historic Tory way of waiting for the economy to go bad and then recruiting to teaching again—we stemmed the decline in recruitment to teacher training in a period of economic success.
Last year, we went further. Building on the golden hellos, we introduced the training salaries, which can be up to £15,000 for training to be a teacher—£6,000 for every postgraduate student, £4,000 extra for the shortage subjects and £5,000 extra for those on the fast track. The evidence shows that it works. Last year, when graduates could choose where to go, because every employer wants graduates, we saw the first increase in people going into teaching. There were 2,500, which was 9 per cent. more than there had been since 1992. Whatever problems there may be, the results of our investment in teaching are beginning to show.
Mr. Whittingdale rose—
Ms Morris: I want to put these figures on the record before I give way. They put our debate into context. Almost every Conservative Member who has spoken

43WH
has said, "Ah yes, but the problem is not recruitment but retention." I doubt whether their spokesperson made that claim when the figures were mentioned last week. Never mind, it is a new week, so a new policy and a new focus. If one looks at retention too, there are almost 7,000 more teachers in service than there were two years ago. These are not our figures. We have not counted them. No one questions or challenges these figures. There are more teachers than there were last year. There are more teachers in service than there were when we came into government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was right. The debate is about how we move forward within that context and this highly competitive market. Make no mistake, more teachers are in service now because it is a better profession with better esteem, recognition, pay and chances for promotion. More people are coming into teacher training than at any time in the past decade because there is more incentive to do so.
I am proud of teaching. It is one of the best professions in the world. I admire teachers. Do not knock the young men and women who are deciding to change careers. Do not pretend that there are fewer teachers now than there were. Do not pretend that more are leaving than coming in, and do not pretend that there has not been a shift in those going into training. Let us discuss the problem, but those figures are real. That is the good news during what has been a difficult period for those who care passionately about the future of schools and children, which is everyone in the Chamber.
Mr. Whittingdale: I would be the first person to welcome good news about teacher recruitment, but can the right hon. Lady confirm that the figures released this month by the Graduate Teacher Training Registry show that the number of applicants for teacher training has fallen from 14,224 last year to 11,935 this year?
Ms Morris: I am delighted to respond to that question as it offers me a wonderful chance to read out a press notice released today that updates the figures from that organisation. It states:
Figures showing 17,700 people applying for postgraduate teacher training—a 10 per cent rise—were today welcomed by School Standards Minister Estelle Morris.
I am thrilled to pieces that the number of inquiries about teaching has doubled compared with the same period last year. On 2 and 3 January this year, the largest number of people rang for information about teaching than at any time in the past decade. We said that those inquiries would be converted into applications. We knew we had to wait until they had been processed. That is why I am delighted to be able to announce today a 10 per cent. increase compared with this time last year. Primary teaching applications are up by 13 per cent., which I know will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who has a primary school problem, and applications for secondary schools have increased by 4 per cent.
I am particularly thrilled with the 33 per cent. increase in applications for chemistry teachers because that has been a problem. Having said that, and thanking the hon.
44WH
Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford for giving me the opportunity, I must point out that even that is not enough. We need to do better. Even today's figures show that we need more maths and physics teachers.
The message that I want to get across is that I do not underestimate the difficulties. Having worked as a teacher for 18 years, I know how tough it is for teachers to lose their non-contact time because they have to take other teachers' lessons. The job is tough and that problem adds to its difficulty, but accountability is important. Do we know that there is a problem? We do. Are the measures that we are taking having results? They are. Are we ignoring problems today, while those measures take effect? We are not.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Morris: I will in a moment.
At 10 am yesterday, we were told about the school that was threatened with a four-day week. By the end of the day, we were able to offer it the names of four teachers, including a maths specialist. I hope that the head will be able to conduct interviews today and prevent the school working a four-day week next week. That illustrates the action that we are taking now for today, next week, the medium and the long term. We are not complacent and do not underestimate the difficulties, but we will not spend our time arguing about the figures for this year or that. Our re-election will bring about real results. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who arrived late in the debate.
Mr. Hayes: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I share her enthusiasm and support for the profession. She has updated the figures from the Graduate Teacher Training Registry in overall terms, but will she be absolutely frank and tell us what the figures are for maths? She will know that the figures from 3 January showed a 29 per cent. decline in the number of maths applicants. Is the current number a decline, an increase or about the same as last year?
Ms Morris: I am now working from memory and if I am wrong, I apologise for an honest error. I think that the figure is 3 per cent. down on last year. The hon. Gentleman tells me that the figure was 29 per cent. so that is good progress. If I am wrong, I will write to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that my memory serves me well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was right. I welcome the conversation that she has had with Paul Lincoln and the desire to move on. The politics of this issue involve teachers and parents' ability to decide which party has the best policies for turning education around. I have said what this Government have done. I am proud of our record on training salaries and investment in education.
I do not think for one minute that a policy that relies merely on sending fewer pieces of paper to schools will tackle the difficulties that face us in teacher recruitment. People should make no mistake. The Tories would abolish training salaries and golden hellos. They would cut the graduate recruitment programme that we have

45WH
expanded to 1,000 places. There is no commitment— [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I would be delighted to sit down if any hon. Gentleman wanted to make a commitment to training salaries, but they are not part of the schools budget that the Tories have promised to protect; they are part of another budget, which the Tories have promised to cut. Whenever they have been challenged on the issue, they have not made that commitment. They rely on being able to say, "If paper doesn't work, let's do what we've always done—hang around and wait for the next recession."
That is not good enough for this Government, for schools in Essex, parents, teachers or kids. We have taken action. The problem is challenging, but our action will bear results in the medium and long term. We are ready today, tomorrow and next week to work in the schools in my hon. Friends' constituencies and elsewhere to ensure that we help teachers to meet the challenges that they face.
Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Lady has rather marred the past few minutes of an otherwise admirable speech by going in for political point scoring, which had previously been avoided. We have had a taste of the scaremongering that we will see in the forthcoming general election campaign. Would the right hon. Lady like to point to a single example of a reduction in spending that has been announced by the Conservative party in the education budget and that is relevant to teacher education?
Ms Morris: With permission, Mr. Jones, I will finish my speech. The Tories have promised to protect the schools budget, not the education budget. Training salaries are not paid for from the schools budget.
Mr. Jenkin: We have not announced a single reduction. We will be able to deliver our reduction in spending—
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. I am advised that the Minister has concluded her remarks. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene on a speech that has concluded.
Mr. Jenkin: With permission. Mr. Jones, I was hoping to take the opportunity to speak. The right hon. Lady cannot point to a single announcement that we have made that implies that we are going to cut the education budget, and we will be able to deliver our reductions in the Government spending plans without touching important items such as teacher recruitment. The right hon. Lady knows it and should apologise.
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. It is time to move on to the next debate.

Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
12.30 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: This is a welcome opportunity to place on the record some pertinent questions about the condition of certain hospital buildings known as Copthorne south at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. There are two acute hospitals in Shropshire—the Princess Royal hospital in the east, in Telford, and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital on the outskirts of Shrewsbury, in the centre and towards the west of the county. The latter services not just the whole county but mid-Wales, which makes it an extremely important hospital.
The Royal Shrewsbury hospital is on a split site. A main road—Mytton Oak road—runs straight through it, from east to west. On the north side is a modern hospital with modern facilities that are brand new or built within the last 20 years or so. On the south side is a ramshackle collection of buildings, some dating back to 1930. Rough macadam roads run around wooden huts, and it is pretty much a disgrace.
In 1997, I had an opportunity to put forward a private finance initiative case to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who was then the Minister of State. I showed him a set of photographs of the Copthorne south buildings. He said that they were some of the "worst hospital buildings" that he had ever seen. Some three and a half years later, we are still using those buildings.
Before I go into detail on those buildings, I want to make it clear that the Royal Shrewsbury hospital has an excellent reputation for care. Under the Government, it has developed and improved a new accident and emergency unit with some £600,000 of investment. It has been given the green light for £1 million of cancer care equipment and a new linear accelerator. Since 1997, it has had more doctors, more nurses and more acute beds. Waiting lists are down for both in-patient and outpatient treatment, and Shropshire health authority has had a massive increase this year and for the next few years of around 6 per cent., which is starting to make a real difference in terms of investment.
Hand in hand with investment goes modernisation. When we put money in, we must get the best possible value out for the national health service. The blame for failing to do so lies fairly and squarely with the Tories, for two reasons. First, they were in power for 18 years, so could have done something about those buildings. Secondly, I was told that a child development centre on the south side was supposed to run for only 15 years until about 1990. However, nothing was ever done about it, and children still have to go there 10 or 11 years after it should have been closed down.
We also inherited in 1997 an incredible amount of red tape and argument between the east and the west of the county. Week after week, there were arguments between the executives of the two hospitals—the Princess Royal and the Royal Shrewsbury—which became very familiar to readers of The Shropshire Star, The Shrewsbury Chronicle and The Telford Journal. Those arguments came about because the Tories had set up competition so that the executives had to fight to the very last bone over investment, planning, resources, staff and so on. The ethos of the Tories was to make sure

47WH
that those hospitals were at each other's throats. Since 1997, that has changed. We are now working towards one hospital on two sites. We already have a joint chief executive and other joint working relationships. Clinicians have also come together. We also have a much better understanding between the public on both sides of the county and within mid-Wales. So it is within that context that I plead the case for the new investment on the understanding that it has to be on the modernisation agenda of the national health service.
Some buildings on the south side date from 1930, but most date from 1945, when, I understand, Canadian solders were enlisted to build a hospital on the Copthorne south site to provide medical facilities for Canadian wounded at the end of the second world war. Those buildings are still being used 56 years later. Forty-four in-patient beds at the Copthorne site are in flat-roofed wooden huts in some of the most appalling conditions that I have ever seen. I have been around the site many times and can provide examples. I record my thanks to Neil Taylor, the joint chief executive at the Princess Royal and the Royal Shrewsbury hospitals for his support. I would also like to thank Tom Caulcott, the chairman, and Graham Seager, the estates manager who is asked to cope with this mess of a building.
For instance, I noticed on one of my tours round that a main electricity switch has to be held up with string, so that it does not turn off all the electricity to a set of administration offices. Most wards containing patients have draughty single-pane windows. There is little ability to control the temperature, so in winter the hospital is extremely cold and in summer it can be very hot. There is no in-between temperature because the heating has to stay on all the time. Water and electricity cables run across the buildings and some of their protective coating is starting to come off. The wood on the outside of the buildings is rotten and paint is peeling off.
There is the phenomenon of rutted floors. In certain wards, ruts run up and down the middle of the ward with beds on either side of them. Those ruts are the width of a trolley, because over the decades the trolleys have been wheeled in and out of the wards and the linoleum, which has been replaced many times, keeps warping. People risk tripping over the flooring, and the lighting is poor. It is obviously a danger in every sense. There are real health and safety problems as well as fire hazards. On one of my tours I asked Mr. Graham Seager, the estates manager, what he would do in the event of a fire alarm, as there is no fire protection for the patients or staff. He told me that there was nothing that anyone could do except evacuate people as quickly as possible and see what happened.
All that is, of course, very inefficient. The heating bills are high, there are problems with mechanical equipment because of the damp, and so on. At the Copthorne south site, some of the facilities are in modern buildings and some in buildings that are 20 or 30 years old. There are 68 medical and rehabilitation in-patient beds, of which, as I mentioned before, 44 are in buildings of the poorest state. There is a day surgery with two theatres, and endoscopy in two rooms. I was shown round a child development centre—I am grateful that I am not a parent who has to take a child with learning difficulties
48WH
around such a single-storey building and out to a back yard that has paving stones lying at all sorts of angles for children to trip over.
A canopy comes from the side of the building, and there is a wooden column, which so rotted that only a metal bracket holds it up, in an area where children have to play. There is a day hospital, a physiotherapy department— which I must thank for getting me back up and running when my knees gave way—a locomotor assessment unit, a dietetic and social works unit and the medical institute, which can be seen from the road. The wooden facade is completely rotten and falling down. Anybody seeing that as an advert for the Royal Shrewsbury hospital would be appalled, until they looked to the oppositte side of the road and saw modern buildings and facilities—including administrative offices—to be proud of.
I have some questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, will she tell the people of Shrewsbury, Shropshire and mid-Wales that the Copthorne south site, where the most dilapidated buildings are, will be closed for good? Some buildings can be re-used and others are relatively new but, please, can we get rid of those wooden huts still housing patients? Secondly, when can we see some new buildings on the north side to let us transfer patients into modern facilities as part of a modern NHS, with well-motivated staff in the best possible working environment? Thirdly, will the Minister come to Shropshire to see the appalling conditions at the Copthorne south site?
I do not want politics to affect decisions, as happened in the time of the Tories, when there was an east-versus-west divide in the county and people could not agree that Copthorne south had to go. There has been too much talk and now it is time for action. There is universal agreement across mid-Wales, across the county, and further afield, because we take in patients from other counties, that we need investment and a new build now.
Finally, change is urgent for the patients and particularly the staff, who have to go into those buildings day in, day out. The buildings can be too cold or too hot or draughty. How can staff convince patients that they can be cured even though the roof might be falling in or leaking and the window panes are rattling? It is hard work for all the staff—auxiliaries, nurses, doctors, consultants and administrators. Now is the time to get the new building and deliver the modern NHS that the people of Shropshire deserve.
12.43 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik: I pay tribute the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), who happens to be my neighbour, for the work that he has done to protect our hospital in a non-party political way. That hospital saved my life in 1998 when I had a serious accident and broke my back. Aside from that great contribution to society, it has also done great work for my constituents, my friends and some of my family. The hospital is a vital resource for Shrewsbury, for the whole of mid-Wales, including Montgomeryshire, Brecon and Radnor, and even further afield.
First, I hope that the Minister will confirm her support in principle for the continued operation and updating of the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, along the

49WH
lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Secondly, I hope that the Minister will take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit that very important facility. The Minister would see staff committed to doing the best that they can, as well as the dilapidated buildings. More than anything, she would meet staff in touch with the needs of the region. I hope that she will take up the hon. Gentleman's offer and visit a success story in medicine that, with a little investment and planning, can continue to serve Montgomeryshire, mid-Wales and Shropshire for many years to come.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on securing a debate about a subject that is of such importance to his constituents. I pay tribute to his consistent efforts and commitment to health provisions in his constituency—clearly demonstrated by the number of parliamentary questions that he has tabled on the subject over the years. None can doubt his dogged determination to improve his constituency's health facilities.
I welcome the opportunity to respond and outline the Government's progress in improving the quality of NHS facilities both across the country and in Shrewsbury. I am also grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik): approximately 20 per cent. of the Royal Shrewsbury hospital's facilities are used for his constituency.
The NHS plan promised major investment in new NHS buildings, and we are delivering on that promise. We now have the biggest ever hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. The development of the hospital building programme is largely attributable to our success with the private finance initiative and the increase in public capital expenditure, which will rise by almost 50 per cent. in real terms to £2.4 billion by 2001–02. The NHS plan also identified a further round of major hospital developments with a capital value of over £2 billion, details of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce in due course.
Our aim is to eradicate old and inappropriate buildings, bringing NHS facilities up to the standard appropriate for modern clinical services—the standard that patients have a right to expect from a modern health service. Our hospital development programme will deliver 38 major new hospitals, 31 under the private finance initiative. Of the 38, 19 will be opened by 2003–04 and the other half will be well under construction. By 2010, 40 per cent. of the total value of the NHS estate will be less than 15 years old. Our buildings will be better designed and the procurement process more efficient.
In committing such major investment to new facilities, we must ensure that the basics are in place. That is why the NHS plan also includes our commitment to investing in cleaner hospitals, better hospital food and better access to facilities for patients. We are providing that in Shrewsbury. For example, we have invested about £1.5 million to provide extra critical care beds, with an additional nine beds at the Royal Shrewsbury and eight at the Princess Royal hospital. We have invested £100,000 at the Royal Shrewsbury
50WH
hospital as part of our clean hospitals initiative, and we are providing extra resources to the local health authority. Indeed, in the next financial year, the health authority will receive an 8.7 per cent. cash increase of more than £23 million, which builds on the 9 per cent. cash increase that it received this financial year.
Collectively, those and many other elements that I could mention if time permitted will ensure that, in the future, patients locally will have the benefit of receiving hospital care with up-to-date equipment in facilities that are fit for the 21st century.
What about the problems at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, which my hon. Friend so graphically illustrated? I was delighted that both hon. Members who spoke could do so from personal experience of the first-class medical treatment that the hospital provided.
Mr. Öpik: I assure the Minister that I was indeed delighted to have had that experience and I probably speak for the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham too.
Ms Stuart: Both hon. Members would have preferred not to make an appearance at the hospital, but they are living examples of the excellent clinical care that they received.
The Royal Shrewsbury hospital, which is located near the centre of the town, provides services from two sites—Copthorne north and Copthorne south. The sites are adjacent, but divided by Mytton Oak road, the arterial road from the town centre. I am more than aware, from personal experience, of what it is like when hospitals have to operate from two sites. Copthorne north, regarded as the main acute site for the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, houses a majority of acute services, including accident and emergency, and has 488 beds; Copthorne south has 68 beds. The north site is the newer, and much larger of the two, being a greenfield development that began in the late 1960s. The south site is older and based on single-storey, hutted accommodation. Of the 68 beds on the south site, 44 are situated within older accommodation, with the remaining 24 beds in a more modern, purpose-built unit. As they constitute only 9 per cent. of the total number of beds at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, and only 5 per cent. of the total acute hospital beds in Shropshire, after taking account of the nearby Princess Royal hospital in Telford, I agree that the facilities provided are poor and must be replaced.
It is important to see the development as part of a strategic context for services across the region. Shropshire health authority is committed to ensuring that services re-provision maximises clinical advantages without compromising clinical safety and viability. To progress that aim, the west midlands regional office of the NHS executive asked the local health economy to produce a joint strategic plan. The plan not only considered the delivery of those objectives directly linked to hospital facilities, but addressed the known services issues related to clinical sub-specialisation across the county. The strategic plan also took account of the need to achieve financial stability to enable the delivery of both national and local priorities.

51WH
Now that the strategic direction has been established, a key objective of the local health economy has been to develop robust plans to facilitate the movement of facilities on the Copthorne south site. The strategic outline to vacate Copthorne south was approved by the regional office in December 2000. An action plan and timetable for those, and the long-term changes that I shall outline shortly, were agreed at a meeting between key stakeholders at the beginning of January.
I assure my hon. Friend that relocation of services from Copthorne south and its subsequent closure, for which he asked, is a recognised priority both locally and regionally, with capital funding of £8 million already earmarked within the regional capital programme to take it forward. The plans are to provide a new emergency admissions unit on the north site, and an expansion of the accident and emergency department, an additional theatre and radiology capacity at Princess Royal hospital to accommodate service changes, the re-provision of physiotherapy services and new child development and locomotor assessment facilities in a community setting, the last of which I hope will delight the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, in view of his earlier comments.
Public moneys will also fund the replacement of the training facilities, and the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS trust is proceeding with arrangements to develop a new medical institute and postgraduate centre on its north side.
I recognise that my hon. Friend is keen that the planned developments progress as quickly as possible and the approved strategic outline case provides the framework for detailed service plans to be worked up by the end of February. The main priority to develop a new medical assessment unit on the Copthorne north site is scheduled for completion by the end of December 2002.
What about the longer-term provision of facilities on the site? I understand that the clinicians and hospital managers at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital have concluded, after looking at all the evidence, that a new ambulatory care centre would be the best solution to meet the health needs of people in west Shropshire. There are also proposals to build an acute rehabilitation unit on the north site encompassing a day hospital and physiotherapy services.
The trust believes that the scheme should be taken forward through a PFI arrangement as the capital cost is in excess of £10 million, and there is land to accommodate the new unit on the north site.
The strategic outline case will be taken forward through the development of two concurrent business cases, one for public capital and the other for private finance. I appreciate that there are concerns about the state of the buildings during the interim period. My hon. Friend has asked many parliamentary questions about health and safety and fire safety issues, of which he gave graphic examples. The inability to control temperature is not limited to old buildings; it happens in many a new building, including this one. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter; we are providing new facilities but in the interim we must ensure that the facilities still used by staff and patients are safe.
52WH
A survey carried out in 1985 on the buildings on the south site indicates that bringing all of the buildings up to modern standards or, where that is not practical, replacing them, would cost around £8.12 million. The trust working with the health authority has decided that such expenditure is not appropriate and that closure of the outdated facilities is the most appropriate solution. In the short term, steps have been taken to reduce the use of the site by patients and to ensure that a safe environment is maintained for those patients and staff that remain. The trust will ensure that that course of action will not have a detrimental effect on waiting lists or inconvenience patients.
Under the NHS plan, trusts are required to improve the standard of the environment for patients, and independent inspections are being carried out. I am pleased to report that the most recent inspection of the Royal Shrewsbury hospital in December 2000 recorded an overall score that indicated a good and improving position. I am also delighted at what the hospital had been doing, not just in terms of health and safety but in terms of investing money in cleaner hospitals. The £100,000 that it was given has been used to good effect, with money put into ward and common area decorations, upgraded toilets, furniture replacement and entrance refurbishment, staff uniforms, corridor lighting and improvement of signage. The trust is aware that it needs to provide both a safe and genuinely more pleasing environment.
I should address, briefly, my hon. Friend's concerns about fire safety. The plans for the vacation of Copthorne south will achieve compliance with fire safety regulations within the 31 March 2003 time scale, laid out in the health service circular 1999/191. Furthermore, risk management arrangements have been put in place by the trust to ensure that the appropriate level of safety is maintained in the interim period.
I pay tribute to the way in which key players in Shropshire have played their part in the development and progression of plans to address the current unsatisfactory position. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that there had, before 1997, been a culture of hospital trust being set against hospital trust. That has been overcome: we now have a degree of co-operation that we had not seen before. I know that local Members of Parliament play an important role in that process of working together, and that the plans are supported by all the key stakeholders, including, as I understand it, the community health council in the constituency of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, which shows that support goes across party lines.
The fulfilment of the plans will achieve a shared vision of the improvement of services for patients. Old, outdated buildings will be disposed of and instead, patients will benefit from a new, diagnostic treatment centre. This will enable the delivery of new services in new settings, consistent with the vision of services that we have outlined in the NHS plan. My hon. Friend asked me three questions, I hope that I have satisfactorily answered one and two.

53WH
The third question was a repeated request for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to visit my hon. Friend's constituency, and I am delighted to accept it in the knowledge that he would welcome me just as warmly. It is simply a question of arranging diaries. My visit would enable me to see for myself not only the conditions that he so graphically described but the good work being done on the new site, sometimes in spite of less than satisfactory environmental conditions. I understand that patient care there is excellent, but we need to improve, invest and build on that already existing success. From what I and hon. Members have said today, we are well on the way to doing that.

Transport (Tiverton and Honiton)
12.59 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: At the conclusion of the Christmas Adjournment debate, I raised matters concerning road and rail transport in my constituency. So important are those matters to my constituents that I felt it appropriate to do so again today so that a Minister could respond to them. Within the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Lord Whitty takes primary responsibility for the matters concerned, but I am grateful to the Under-secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), for being here today. I have given his office notice of the key matters that I shall address.
The first is the A30 road between Honiton and the M5 in my constituency—a design, build, finance and operate scheme which was opened by the Deputy Prime Minister in August 1999. From its inception, I raised with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Highways Agency the concerns of my constituents about the noise that would be created if the top surface of that road were concrete rather than asphalt. I took a delegation from my constituency to see Lord Whitty and passed correspondence that I had received on the matter on to him. I had been assured in writing that the noise level of what was described as whisper concrete—a misnomer if ever there was one— would be virtually no different from that of a tarmacked finish.
Many road schemes are not popular in their locality, but this one was much wanted in my constituency. I have lived adjacent to it for nearly 25 years and I know how dangerous the old road was, and how high its death toll. However, the noise suffered by residents quite some way away, not just those living immediately alongside the road, has become intolerable. A local action group, the RT30 team, has done a lot of work, as has our local daily newspaper the Exeter Express and Echo, in assisting local residents to get to the bottom of why the road is so noisy. Lord Whitty kindly agreed that the Highways Agency could undertake road noise tests, as did the RT30 campaign, assisted by the Express and Echo and Exeter university. It is clear from both sets of tests that the residents are experiencing from between 8 to 13 decibels higher than the permitted level. Many properties adjacent to the road are subject to noise levels that exceed the recommendations of the World Health Organisation or at which planning permission for residential development would not normally be permitted under Government planning policy.
People in the affected areas have invested huge sums in double glazing, but many are still precluded by the noise of the road from enjoying their back gardens in summer and have to keep the windows closed day and night in summer. When the Prime Minister visited Exeter to attend a Labour party conference last July he told us, to our delight, that the Government agreed that the noise levels were too high and that the road would be resurfaced. In addition to their delight, residents wanted to know when we would see some action. I continued to provide Lord Whitty with letters from my constituents and wrote to him myself on 23 August.

55WH
He replied:
I regret that I am unable to give a firm promise on timing for the A30 until this programme has been drawn up and agreed. I will ask the Agency to write to you again in the autumn when we should have further news on when resurfacing work on this length of A30 will commence.
Clearly, the autumn has come and gone, so I hope that the Minister will fix a date for the work to start, because this is not just another concrete road.
I was misled by the Highways Agency and I was misled by Connect, the contractors, which both verbally and in writing assured me that the surface would not cause noise aggravation, which it clearly does. Even worse, at the public inquiry the inspector at the inquiry that preceded these events was misled as to the anticipated decibel level. When the Prime Minister made his promise, we felt that because he was personally involved in such a local matter, we could expect to benefit from his clout. I re-emphasise that this is not just another concrete road. This is a road over which promises have been made and broken.
I have another point to make to the Minister, because it was not appropriate to put it to the deputy Leader of the House at Christmas. Clear written evidence was sent to me, and to the inspector at the public inquiry, that we could have expected a quieter road. Can the Government enforce the contract, into which they must have entered, to ensure that the whisper concrete complies with its terms? The Minister will be under pressure to resurface many of Britain's concrete roads, but I plead that this is a special case because we were misled. Perhaps the department responsible for transport was misled. Perhaps the Highways Agency should look to the contract for this scheme.
Throughout the road's construction, I informed my constituents about it in good faith. We were led to understand that whisper concrete does not cause noise problems; it clearly does. It causes insufferable distress to my constituents, and I have received dozens of complaints from people along the length of the road, many of which I have passed to Lord Whitty, the Under-secretary. For example, I have received letters from Feniton amenities association, Ottery St. Mary and Clift Honiton, which make it clear that this road has a negative impact on the quality of everyday life. That is why I have placed this urgent matter first on my list; this is not just another road. Given the background and the promises that have been made, I hope that the Minister will understand. We look to the Prime Minister, who has kindly involved himself, to keep his promise and give the scheme priority, so that my constituents can enjoy quiet in their homes.
I shall briefly touch on other roads related matters before I turn to serious rail transport issues. I am delighted that the Government have recently decided to reverse their policy of antipathy towards bypasses. Crediton, a small Devon market town in my constituency, needs a bypass. When I attended the public examination of the Devon county structure plan at county hall in September 1997, the county environmental director stated that he anticipated a scheduled start for the Crediton bypass in 2003–04.
There are two elements to the Crediton bypass: the first concerns Government funding, the second relates to the county council maintaining the pecking order and
56WH
priority lists that they have put forward for bypasses. I regularly correspond with Devon county council and other interested parties about the Crediton bypass. I shall keep up the pressure, so that Crediton does not slip down the list.
Although these are long-term plans, I hope that the Government will give some hope in terms of time scale. I do not expect the Minister to say today that we will have our Crediton bypass next year—I doubt whether the county council would be ready to do that. However, in planning these welcome road schemes, I hope that the Government can provide a time framework. The bottleneck at the Exeter road end of Crediton is causing huge environmental problems. The streets are narrow, and big lorries sit there with their engines labouring. I am concerned about the health of the people who live close to that road.
The good news is the Government's recognition of the need to dual the A30 at the opposite end of the Honiton bypass, which links with the A303 further up the road, and, ultimately, the M3. I welcome that development, for which I have long argued, although it is a difficult step for a constituency Member of Parliament to take. This stretch of road passes through some beautiful countryside, particularly in my patch. However, there has been a public inquiry, which was in fact completed before the general election.
As a peninsula, the south-west depends on the movement of people and goods to access other parts of the country. Of course, there is the important M5–M4 corridor, but it essential that we have a second arterial route, so that people can use the M3 link and travel to Exeter and the far south-west. That is vital not just to my constituents, but to the overall economy of the south-west. The Minister will recognise that it is rather unusual for a constituency MP to want a decision to allow a trunk route through her constituency to be implemented. However, the south-west's larger economy, particularly tourism and the movement of goods, depends on it.
I come to railways. The Minister will understand that we in the south-west feel that the two-way process of good transport access to the rest of the country is vital. However, there are huge problems with bridges on the main line—the line from Paddington to Exeter, Plymouth and Cornwall, which has a spur to Torbay— that connects London with the far south-west. I am sorry to say that those problems seem to affect my constituency. All I need is a proposed prison development and a few other problems and I would have the full set. The bridges are causing great disruption not just to my constituents but to all commuters in the south-west.
Mr. Colin Breed: I want to emphasise that, in addition to the hon. Lady's concerns, any rail dislocation or road disruption in Devon has an immediate impact on the entire economy of Cornwall.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice that he wanted to make that point, and he is absolutely right. That shows the importance of this railway line.
There are on-going problems with Stafford bridge, which is a rail bridge over the River Exe at Stoke Canon. There has been considerable investment to try to resolve

57WH
the problem, but when there is heavy rainfall and the river is in full flow or flooding, the bridge's foundations can be undermined. In the past, divers have had to check the foundations, which has resulted in delays. Not for one minute am I suggesting that anyone wants to compromise rail safety, and I recognise there has been investment. However, real problems remain, of which the Stafford bridge is one.
There is a more recent, and perhaps long-term, problem. The Cowley bridge, which is on the edge of my constituency, is a road bridge over the railway line on the approach to Exeter St. David's station. Huge problems have been experienced there. In the two months before Christmas, the main line was out of action for 22 days. That means that passengers wishing to access the main line have to be bussed between Exeter St. Davids and Tiverton Parkway—a huge disruption to what is often a long railway journey.
Railtrack told me that it has taken measures to try to resolve the problem at Cowley bridge. Initially, it thought that it was a once-in-a-lifetime problem that, having been dealt with once, would not have to be revisited. However, within five weeks the problem was as bad as ever, and Railtrack's preliminary investigation showed that the problem will not go away.
Provisions have been made to deal with the immediate problems involving drainage pipes and culverts, but local engineers say that a full feasibility study is required. I emphasise to the Minister that a large engineering project may be necessary, because the problem involves not only the railway line, but a road bridge at a major connection across the railway. I hope that he can use his influence to persuade and to help Railtrack to carry out the feasibility study and to bring in all the attendant agencies and departments that will inevitably be involved in such a big engineering project.
We in the south-west cannot afford to have our main railway line cut off for 22 days out of two months. We all know that there are changes in the weather pattern, for which I do not pretend to understand the full reasons. Local engineers clearly believe that the problem could recur, and we must therefore look to the long term. I urge the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that the overall feasibility study takes place as soon as possible.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing the debate, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to discuss road and rail transport in the Tiverton and Honiton area. I am grateful to her for her courtesy in providing me with advance notice of the matters that she intended to raise. I also recognise the concerns that were expressed by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed).
Let me turn immediately to the issue of noise on the A30, which I know well from my journeys to the southwest. The feelings of local residents about noise are obvious from the placards which appear along the road. It is a matter for regret that the road—one of the flagship design, build, finance and operate private sector roads initiated by the previous Government—should have proved to be a source of disturbance to local people. It
58WH
was a concrete-built road, designed to minimise maintenance requirements and to keep costs down, while fully complying with the standards for the traffic volumes that were anticipated—and are currently experienced—on the road.
I am assured that no promise was ever given by the Highways Agency—for which I have direct responsibility—regarding the use of so-called whisper concrete in the construction of the road. However, the agency acknowledges that noise levels are higher than was predicted at the public inquiry. That is why the Government have confirmed, more than once, that that stretch of the A30 will be resurfaced with a lower-noise surface.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, no precise date has been given for that resurfacing work. However, contrary to her assertion, no promises have been broken. In the words of the Prime Minister, as quoted in the 3 July 2000 edition of Exeter's excellent Express and Echo:
This stretch of the A30 will be resurfaced with a lower noise surface. I can't give you a firm promise on timing because it's only fair that those roads with the worst noise problems are dealt with first. But I can promise this problem will be tackled.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Is the Minister saying that nothing misleading was said during the public inquiry to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to give people the impression that the road would not break noise levels? The road has broken noise levels. Does he accept that people were misled? Will he address her question about whether he has the power to force the Highways Agency to enforce any contractual agreement that was made at the time about noise?
Mr. Hill: I repeat that the agency acknowledges that the noise levels are higher than those forecast at the public inquiry. As regards the enforcement of the contract, I assure hon. Members that I shall look at that matter personally to see what opportunities exist to enforce the contract. I shall certainly write to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members with the conclusions of that inquiry.
The date of resurfacing will depend on a number of considerations, not least the conclusions of the present consultation between the Highways Agency and the local authorities, of which Devon is one, on the criteria for prioritising such work. I shall refer to that in a little more detail shortly.
The Government recognise that traffic noise is a major concern for many communities living close to roads, including the A30. Tackling traffic noise is a high priority for the Government and for the Highways Agency and we are taking action on a number of fronts. The Government's 10-year transport plan "Transport 2010", published in July 2000, gave a commitment that
quieter surfaces will be installed on over 60 per cent. of the network including all concrete stretches.
The Highways Agency is committed to using quieter surfacing as a matter of course, whenever a road needs to be resurfaced as part of its on-going maintenance programme. It is expected that at least 55 per cent. of black-top roads will have been resurfaced by March

59WH
2011. Some 70 locations on the trunk road network that have a concrete surface will be resurfaced by March 2011.
Mrs. Browning: Following the Prime Minister's verbal promise, Lord Whitty wrote to me on 23 August saying:
I will ask the Agency to write to you again in the autumn when we should have further news on when resurfacing work on this length of the A30 will commence.
My constituents believed that, in anyone's language, that would mean that we would be given a date—not that it would start straightaway, but that we would not be left, as we now are, hanging in limbo, with dates such as 2011 being bandied about.
Mr. Hill: I do not think that 2011 should necessarily be bandied about, but I recognise the force of the hon. Lady's point that an assurance was given that information would be provided to her in due course about the timing of the resurfacing work. Again, I give hon. Members the undertaking that I will ensure that the promised correspondence is dispatched at the earliest opportunity.
I was explaining the various measures that the Government have taken to expedite the resurfacing work. In March last year, they established a ring-fenced budget of £5 million to provide noise mitigation measures to deal with some of the most serious and pressing cases of traffic noise on existing trunk roads, as promised in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England".
We are committed to open government and to improving decision making by ensuring that decisions take account of both the people affected by them and their interests. The Highways Agency has developed criteria to fulfil the Government's commitments in our 10-year plan. It has embarked on a consultation exercise with local authorities on the criteria to be used for prioritisation of resurfacing of concrete roads. The consultation document has also been published on the agency's website to allow other interested parties to comment, and copies can be obtained from the agency.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said about rail transport, but although a noisy bypass is a nuisance, no bypass at all is an even greater nuisance. In considering Devon's highway network, will the Minister give some thought to the Kingskerswell bypass and Torbay's link with the country's road traffic network?
Mr. Hill: I am pleased yet again, if I may say so in a public forum, to receive the hon. Gentleman's representations on behalf of his constituency. He has been most assiduous in the margins of the House in pressing that case.
For the interest of hon. Members, let me explain the criteria on which the Highways Agency will develop its programme for resurfacing roads. The first criterion is to deal with the noisiest sites that affect the most people. That means that the agency will endeavour to improve
60WH
the situation for the maximum number of people who are closest to trunk roads in the earlier part of the programme.
Secondly, the programme aims to minimise disruption to general public and users of the network. That means that the agency will try to combine the work with other planned works on the network and use construction, procurement and traffic management methods that speed up the works. Thirdly, the programme aims to minimise whole-life cost. That means providing the right treatment at the right time with minimum disruption to traffic and achieving value for money.
The agency is planning to complete the consultation exercise by the end of April 2001 and publish the criteria in due course. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the outcome of the agency's consultation, or the programme that will develop, based on the adopted criteria.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton raised many points and I have taken many interventions. Following the priority that she set in her own speech, I now say a word about the Crediton bypass. As hon. Members will be aware, the A377 road is not a trunk road, so Devon County Council, as the local highway authority, is responsible for the road and for any improvements to it.
In its local transport plan for 2001–2006, Devon county council explained that over the plan period it would work with partners to identify the most appropriate sustainable solutions to traffic congestion in and around Crediton. Devon county council accepts that the need for a bypass has yet to be proven. Over the next five years, it will carry out an appraisal of present and future traffic trends in the Crediton area. Any proposal to construct a bypass will have to be tested against a range of options, so that it can be demonstrated to be an appropriate solution to the town's traffic problems. It will, of course, need to demonstrate how it fits with and meets the Government's five overarching objectives for transport—safety, environment, economy, integration and accessibility.
It will be for Devon county council to decide if such a scheme can be included in its local transport plan for 2006-2011 and the priority that it should enjoy in relation to any other schemes that it wishes to seek funding for in that period. The hon. Lady will clearly be making her voice heard by the local authority in establishing priority for that bypass. If the case for a bypass is accepted, the funding will be provided through the local transport plan from the £180 billion that we will deliver in the 10-year transport plan.
The hon. Lady mentioned other road schemes. A number of road schemes along the A30–A303 corridor are being considered under the London to the south-west and south Wales multimodal study. Those include the March Honiton and A35 Honiton eastern bypass. A decision on the scheme will follow the study outcome.
In the meantime, over the past six months, the consultants have been building a comprehensive picture of the problems and issues in the study area. They have done that through workshops, exhibitions, briefing sessions and one-to-one meetings as well as through data collection and other sources. The next step is to

61WH
work towards an emerging preferred strategy, on which there will be formal consultation—probably in May. Following the establishment of a preferred strategy, more detailed solutions to the problems identified will be developed that are consistent with the preferred strategy.
My officials who are managing the study will continue to keep hon. Members in the study area up to date with progress. I understand that very shortly a further letter will be sent to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members in the study area setting out more details on progress and outlining the remaining study programme to the end of the year.
Exceptionally rapidly, let me turn to at least one other issue raised by the hon. Lady. I am aware that the Tiverton and Honiton constituency has been particularly affected by recent floods that have damaged railway track and bridges in the area, causing widespread disruption. I understand that the Yeovil to Exeter line reopened on 4 January, albeit with a 20 mph speed restriction. I have also been informed that Railtrack is to install additional relief pipes at Cowley bridge, to which the hon. Lady referred, to divert excess water from the River Exe when it floods, so that it does not interfere with the railway. In addition, as the hon. Lady will be aware, Staffords bridge has been subjected to improvements in the past five years to make it more robust. Railtrack is continuing to look at ways of either preventing future flooding or reducing the duration of the impact of the floods and consequent line closures. In more general terms, we are aware that more regular users of the railways—
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Cystic Fibrosis
1.30 pm
Ms Tess Kingham: I am grateful to have the opportunity of raising the important issue of the screening of babies in the first few weeks of life to detect cystic fibrosis. As cystic fibrosis is a bit of tongue-twister, I will refer to it as CF for the rest of this debate.
I first became aware of CF through my mother-in-law Delia Luetchford who worked as a physiotherapist, specialising in the treatment of CF patients for more than 20 years. Delia's experience of working with families affected by CF convinced her that screening for the disease at birth would mean early diagnosis and therefore early treatment for children. Early intervention is crucial to prevent unnecessary damage to patients' lungs in the long term, which helps to lengthen life span. Early diagnosis of CF also reduces emotional strains on families who otherwise suffer months or even years of uncertainty as they watch their children suffer.
Delia's view that early screening is essential is shared almost unanimously by professionals working with CF patients, and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust has over the past five years run a campaign to achieve a national CF screening programme. For the benefit of the House, I should first like to explain a little about CF and its effects, as it is important to have a basic understanding of the disease to appreciate why early screening is so crucial.
CF is the UK's most common inherited life-threatening disease. It affects the internal organs— especially the lungs and the pancreas. At present there is no cure, and average life-expectancy for sufferers is around 30. Approximately 7,500 people have CF in the UK today, and every week five babies are born with the disease. Three young people die from CF each week, usually as a result of lung damage.
In simplistic, layman's terms, CF causes thick mucus to clog the lungs. Healthy lungs have small hairs called villae, which throw up any mucus that collects, acting as a daily self-cleaning process. In CF sufferers the mucus is abnormally thick and sticks to the villae, so that the cleaning process does not work. The mucus is also salty and kills off the good anti-bacteriological agent present in lungs, which prevents infections, so that CF patients are more prone to serious chest infections.
CF patients need daily physiotherapy to help clear this mucus and they require speedy antibiotic treatment to fight off infections. An added problem for sufferers is pancreatic insufficiency, which most babies born with CF suffer, and which means that their bodies do not produce the correct enzymes to digest food properly. Often CF babies will eat and eat and not thrive because the food passes straight through them. They become malnourished and, unless treated, will not have the strength to fight off the inevitable chest infections that they will suffer. That layman's version of the disease is important to our understanding of the debate.
Early CF diagnosis through screening means that treatment can begin immediately, and that has a major impact on the long-term prognosis for the patient. If a baby is diagnosed early, physiotherapy can begin straightaway and antibiotics can be swiftly administered, helping to prevent lung damage in the

63WH
long term. Babies can also be fed artificial enzymes and given other appropriate nutritional treatments to ensure that they can digest their food and thrive. That helps to provide babies with the energy to fight off chest infections. If there is no screening programme for CF and if babies are not diagnosed until months or years later, there could be serious consequences.
Families often know—as parents and mothers do— there is something wrong with their child but feel frustrated by continual GP and hospital visits with no clear diagnosis. I know of cases in which children were ill with CF for six years before it was diagnosed. The child may suffer continual chest infections, stomach aches and be unable to put on weight. Continual worry and anxiety without knowing the cause can put terrible pressures on family relationships. Late diagnosis can mean that repeat chest infections are not dealt with appropriately, leading to eventual lung-damage and reduced life expectancy.
Dr. Jim Littlewood, retired consultant paediatrician at St. James hospital, Liverpool and now chairman of the research and medical advisory committee of the cystic fibrosis trust, has had over 30 years experience of working with patients with CF from the UK and overseas. He is a passionate advocate of neo-natal screening for CF. In his personal submission to the cystic fibrosis workshop held at the institute for child health at University college, London last year, he explained why early appropriate treatment is vital for CF patients, as it enabled them to avoid reaching the point of no return. That point comes when a person moves from having CF to lung disease.
After the onset of lung disease there is chronic infection, inflammation and progressive deterioration. If the point of no return can be avoided or delayed, the patient can live longer and therefore have the benefit of any new treatments that are coming onto the market. That can make the difference between a person living from, say, 16 to 17 or 30 years, and in future, hopefully, life expectancy will become 40 or 50 or more as treatment for cystic fibrosis improves—as it is doing all the time.
Dr. Littlewood is convinced that early diagnosis, if it is followed by effective treatment, will avoid or delay the point of no return, and the role that neo-natal screening plays in this is obvious. I have no medical background but I have spoken to many professionals involved with CF care, and their argument has seemed like common sense to me. Why do we not screen babies at birth? Why do we not get an early diagnosis and ensure that their treatment starts immediately, rather than risking delays that can lead to lung damage and reduce life span? Is it because the screening process is very complex? Is it incredibly expensive? Would it require setting up major new facilities and investment in costly new technology? The answer, on all counts, is no.
It is very simple to screen babies at birth for CF. If parental permission is given, all babies currently take the Guthrie test—a simple heel prick to take blood that is tested for a range of diseases. Cystic fibrosis could be tested using the same blood, and we believe that that would cost around £2 for each baby. The experts—I mean the paediatricians, doctors, physiotherapists and people with years of practical experience of working
64WH
with people with cystic fibrosis—are overwhelmingly convinced and determined that the screening should happen nationally.
The NHS health technology assessment programme issued a report on screening for cystic fibrosis in June 1999. It reviewed the results of 20 neo-natal screening studies, and concluded that
in view of the low false positive rate and the low cost of the test, we conclude that each purchasing authority could consider providing neo-natal cystic fibrosis screening, either in combination with neo-natal screening or alone.
Professionals around Britain have seen and treated children, whom they know have sustained avoidable lung damage while awaiting diagnosis—damage that will shorten their lives. Some paediatricians were so appalled that they persuaded their health authorities to set up neo-natal cystic fibrosis screening programmes, and those operate in East Anglia, Trent, Wales, Leeds, Wolverhampton and Northern Ireland. Currently, the screening programmes cover only 23 per cent. of babies. Some 77 per cent., including my own twins who were born last year, are not covered. That is an example of the postcode lottery that our Labour Government have pledged to end.
We should bring other health authorities around Britain up to this standard by implementing a national screening programme. In fact, I know of one dreadful case that illustrates that point well. A pregnant woman lived equidistant from two maternity hospitals, one of which provided screening and one of which did not. She went to the one that did not. Her baby was born with CF, did not thrive and died seven months later, undiagnosed. She discovered her baby had CF only from the autopsy report. If the baby had gone to the other hospital, been screened and had the early nutritional and antibiotic treatment, the outcome might have been very different. Understandably, she is rather bitter.
Health authorities, however, were instructed not to set up any new neo-natal cystic fibrosis screening programmes until the UK national screening committee had produced its report on the issue. The child health screening sub-group, however, recommended, much to the dismay of those in the cystic fibrosis world, that neo-natal screening for cystic fibrosis should not be recommended. Those arguments, I believe, are not sufficient to prevent a national screening programme from taking place, and I should like to look at them briefly, in turn.
First, the group argued that there was a lack of evidence showing that early diagnosis by screening makes an important difference to the long-term outlook for a patient. Let us be clear about what is meant by that. That argument makes it appear that there is no evidence that screening babies gives any advantage over not screening. Many studies show, in fact, that screened infants have a better medical condition and better nutritional state, and that there is reduced cost from fewer diagnostic tests and less expensive treatment. There is also a benefit, clearly, to the families involved, by cutting out months, even years, of uncertainty before diagnosis. That gives those families the information that they need to make informed choices about whether to risk having any more children who may be born with cystic fibrosis.

65WH
It is almost impossible to come up with the pinpoint scientific proof that the committee appears to demand. It wants conclusive data from randomised control trials. Given long-term survival rates and improved treatment over the past decade, any new studies of that nature in the UK could wait around 20 years until selected screened and non-screened children had reached early adulthood. That would be a long delay in setting up a national screening programme. I am sure that the Minister would not see that as appropriate.
There is, however, as a counterbalance, a wealth of other medical evidence and studies. I do not have time to go into them all in detail, but some examples are a recent 10-year CF screening data from the New South Wales group, and a recent 13-year study from Wisconsin. There is also a 10-year screening study from Brittany. The French Government have introduced screening generally in France. Yesterday, I learned that the Government of the Republic of Ireland have decided to introduce a national neo-natal CF screening programme, much to the delight of that country's paediatricians.
I also have information of new evidence from the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust, which I believe is highly significant. The trust runs the UK database, where consultants send anonymised information about CF cases that they have treated. It currently covers, I believe, around 6,000 cases. Research on that database has shown that if a child is not diagnosed and treated with the appropriate antibiotics early on, it is much more likely to develop chronic pseudomonas, which is a mark of possible early death. However, having antibiotics administered at the right doses early after diagnosis will prevent colonisation by pseudomonas. I believe that that is highly significant new evidence of which the Minister should be aware. The Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust will submit its evidence to the national screening committee imminently.
The national screening committee sub-group currently recommends more research. However, as there is now vast clinical experience of CF to draw on, we surely do not need yet another controlled trial to show that it is better to diagnose a life-threatening disease early, given that so much rests on effective treatment commencing as soon as possible.
Clearly, evidence-based science has brought us great benefits, but there are cases where common sense must be paramount. Sometimes the evidence of experience is as important as statistical data, and I feel that that may well be the case here. Perhaps we should hear what is being said by the people who know this disease best. For a start, Dr. Little wood says:
While conceding the lack of absolute proof of a favourable effect on long-term prognosis, if one considers all the available comparative studies, all tend to show some advantage for the screened infants … From a clinician's point of view, the following complete the now unassailable case for neo-natal CF screening: the clinical facts, the present-day improved treatment which must be introduced early before chronic damage, the imminent prospect of more specific, even curative treatments, unlikely to help patients with advanced disease, and last but not least, simple common sense, and what we would wish for our children and their children.
If we insist on evidence, we must consider what happens when a child is not diagnosed early. What is the impact on families and the baby if there is no screening, no early diagnosis, and no early treatment? Surely that
66WH
should carry equal weight. Who better to tell us than the parents involved? The Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust carried out a survey last year, and I would like to quote five parents who were interviewed. The first parent said:
Having two children with CF at a similar age, and on the same medication, X's health is far better than Y's. Y has had more infections, more hospital visits, her weight still isn't good and she gets more breathless. More importantly, Y has damaged her left lung which is from the first 10 months of her life being undiagnosed. But X's lungs have no damage so far, because her medication started at birth.
The second parent said:
I am very angry that my son was not diagnosed earlier. If he was he could have avoided all the pain he went through. X was born and I was told I had a lovely healthy baby boy. Myself and my husband were overjoyed. However, this soon turned to misery as day after day we watched a chubby 81b baby turn into a tiny skeleton; his skin had lost so much muscle that only skin and bone remained. When you picked him up he would cry in pain… Eventually at 12 weeks old they admitted him to hospital weighing just 91bs; he was suffering from malnutrition. He had various tests done and a week later he was diagnosed with CF. We were devastated. A week later he went for a routine check and they found that part of his lung had collapsed due to the mucus.
The third parent said:
We feel extremely lucky that he had the screening. He is now a very healthy little boy, putting on plenty of weight with thanks to Creon and so far no chest infections due to regularly having his physio. My heart goes out to those families whose babies are not screened.
The fourth parent said:
I now look back and regret her late diagnosis and feel that as parents maybe we have let her down in not recognising a more serious problem earlier on. But maybe it was not us really but the system that let us down.
The fifth:
We were very disappointed, hurt and angry that Jamie was not diagnosed at birth because he was born in the wrong part of the country. No child should have to suffer like our child did.
That says it all.
We should also know the opinion of medical experts in the field. When asked by the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust about neo-natal CF screening, 96 per cent. of paediatricians who responded and 78 per cent. of physicians favoured it. Let us ask an important question: what should carry ultimate weight—clinical trials or the experience and opinions of parents, patients, paediatricians and health professionals involved in the day-to-day care of people with cystic fibrosis?
The second argument adduced against screening was that there is no laboratory or clinical treatment protocol, but that hardly seems a major hurdle. Professionals have made it clear that although the various laboratories that carry out the screening have developed their own variations on the IRT/DNA method, it would not be a major problem to unify them, if necessary. In terms of clinical treatment protocol, I am informed that the committee is misguided and that clinicians have a clear treatment protocol for very young infants diagnosed by screening. On balance, the case for a national neo-natal cystic fibrosis screening programme is overwhelming.
The national screening committee has said that the door is not closed and the child health screening subcommittee will continue to work with the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust on a way forward. That is

67WH
positive. There is also considerable support in the House for a screening programme. More than 100 Members signed the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I am sure that a campaign run by the trust will attract considerable media and public attention. I invite the Minister to meet me, members of the trust and Dr. Littlewood, to listen to views and examine important new evidence.
Finally, there is the moral issue. Can it be right to prevent screening when common sense shows that it benefits children's medical condition, helps to prolong their lives and is of minimal cost and effort to the NHS? In the long term, it could even save the NHS considerable sums of money. It cannot be right to prevent that, and I believe that the Minister will decide to proceed with a cystic fibrosis screening programme in the near future.
1.47 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) on securing the debate and raising such important issues. As she knows, cystic fibrosis is the most common genetic disease to be found in Caucasian children and affects about one in 2,500 children. It is a disorder of the mucus-secreting glands of the lungs, pancreas, mouth, gastro-intestinal tract and sweat glands of the skin. Symptoms include failure to gain weight despite a good appetite and repeated attacks of respiratory infections. Treatment is possible and consists of regular physiotherapy, drainage antibiotics and the taking of pancreatic supplements and vitamins.
There have been significant improvements in care and services for people with cystic fibrosis in the past 25 years, so that 75 per cent. of sufferers survive into adult life today. Two decades ago, only 12 per cent. of affected children survived into adolescence. Current life expectancy can be about 30 years, but it is rising as more effective treatment becomes available. Experts predict that those born in the 1990s may live for about 40 years.
As a result of our success in increasing the life expectancy of people with cystic fibrosis, we are developing a broader range of adult services. The Department of Health has charged regional offices with ensuring that effective and systematic arrangements are in place for commissioning specialised services and identifying local priority specialised services for a major review of service provision and commissioning arrangements. Five of the eight regions have prioritised cystic fibrosis in the regional specialised commissioning groups in their 2000–01 annual work programme.
My hon. Friend focused on neo-natal screening. We take cystic fibrosis seriously. We are extremely interested in developing ways to improve diagnosis and treatment. We are also continually assessing ways to improve antenatal and childhood screening to improve child health. I am keen to look further at possible improvements in children's health and health services.
The House will be aware that we recently announced new child screening programmes as part of the modernisation agenda in the national health service plan. We announced plans in the past few months to introduce a national screening programme for children
68WH
with sickle cell and blood disorders and the piloting of universal neo-natal hearing screening so that we can implement nationally an early test for hearing problems. Both are significant advances. Both policy announcements were informed by the work of the United Kingdom National Screening Committee to review the research evidence and test the effectiveness of the screening programme.
We also turned to the NSC for advice on cystic fibrosis screening. It is chaired by the chief medical officer for Northern Ireland and advises Ministers in England, the devolved national Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament on all aspects of screening policy. In forming its advice, it draws on the latest research evidence and the skills of specially convened multi-disciplinary expert groups, which always include patient and service user representatives. A child health subgroup was established to look at the range of screening programmes for children and offer advice about stopping, starting and changing programmes and improving their quality. It assesses proposed new screening programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria covering the condition, the test, the treatment options, and the effectiveness and acceptability of the screening programme.
Assessing programmes in that way is intended to ensure that they do more good than harm at a reasonable cost. We need to be sensitive to the fact that screening programmes can cause anxiety and distress, especially if they lead to large numbers of false positives. If many parents are likely to be told that their child has a serious health problem, when in fact they do not, the anxiety and distress that that could cause to those families needs to be taken into account when assessing the case for the screening programme.
The NSC is considering two forms of testing for cystic fibrosis: neo-natal and antenatal screening. I will return to the latter if I have time. I wanted to concentrate first on neo-natal screening, as that is the issue that my hon. Friend made the subject of her powerful speech. Screening newborns for cystic fibrosis can be done via the blood spot collected on the Guthrie card. Screening can lead to positive tests, which, after further tests, lead to a diagnosis being confirmed at a few weeks of age before any symptoms are apparent. Therapy can then start. Without the screening test, some cases are identified by presentation in the newborn period, such as bowel blockage. With increasing awareness of the disorder, many cases can be diagnosed at six to 12 months due to respiratory symptoms or failure to thrive. This often picks up most of the severe cases, which would benefit from early therapy.
About 18 per cent. of the population are covered by a neo-natal screening service for cystic fibrosis. The NSC has invested considerable energies in reviewing the case for introducing a national neo-natal screening programme for cystic fibrosis through reviews of evidence and workshops. Its assessment is that screening for cystic fibrosis is not as straightforward as some other screening programmes. There are different professional viewpoints. I am aware that some of those who are involved in screening are enthusiastic advocates for a national programme. I am also aware that others in the paediatric world are not convinced that the case is yet sufficiently proven.

69WH
The President of the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health, for example, believes that there is not yet sufficient evidence for the benefits of the screening programme. The NSC's advice to the Govt is that we should not yet move towards a national programme until we have more evidence of effectiveness. First, the committee argues that there is no direct evidence that the outcome is different for children in those parts of the country that have a screening programme and those that do not. It argues that, given that screening programmes can have harmful effects, usually psychological but also physical, clear evidence of benefit is essential before a new programme is established.
The health technology assessment, "Screening for Cystic Fibrosis" published in 1999, to which my hon. Friend referred, systematically reviewed the available evidence and was authored by some of the country's leading experts in the field. It stated:
The ability of screening to alter long-term prognosis has not been conclusively proven.
The NSC concluded that it is not yet clear whether there is a benefit in finding newborn babies with cystic fibrosis through screening compared with identifying them through traditional diagnostic routes. It also points out that there is evidence to suggest that false positive cases can cause parents significant psychological harm. In addition, in some positive cases, over-dependence on drugs at an early stage may also have a negative impact. The NSC also concluded that there was no current consensus on which screening test was the best or agreement on its interpretation, that early treatment in milder cases may have limited benefit and possibly adverse effects, and that there are no quality management systems for a programme. It has kept the evidence base under constant review, including examining the international evidence.
I have considerable sympathy with the arguments of my hon. Friend and of parents and doctors, who are keen to have the earliest possible diagnosis of cystic fibrosis. I also have a responsibility to consider the evidence and, in particular, the advice of the NSC—the expert committee that we have set up to review the evidence. In the light of its central conclusion that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to justify rolling out a neo-natal screening programme, I have asked it to consider how those gaps in the evidence, could be filled as rapidly as possible. I have also asked it to review its advice, on the basis of that evidence, in the next 12 months. The NSC is, therefore, working to extend the knowledge base on the issue to inform that review.
70WH
First, the NSC will be funding a study of the existing screened population to help clarify and quantify differences in the outcomes for screened babies and later presenting symptomatic babies, to ensure that we examine the fact that some areas have cystic fibrosis screening and others do not and to compare the outcomes for those areas. Secondly, it is undertaking a further review of emerging international evidence from Canada and the USA, in particular, the large-scale trial in Wisconsin, which is expected to offer new and robust material in the next 12 months. I understand that the Wisconsin trial is examining outcomes for those with cystic fibrosis identified through screening, and those identified through other diagnostic routes.
Finally, the NSC is working with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and the key professional bodies to develop a strategy to improve awareness in primary care about cystic fibrosis and respiratory disease. The NSC will, therefore, be exploring methods of analysing routinely available data from the existing NHS service in more detail, but also collecting new data.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument that we should not set inappropriate evidence tests, but I also feel that we could gather considerable evidence in the next 12 months better to inform a decision on cystic fibrosis screening in babies. It is not acceptable for us to identify gaps in the evidence but not to attempt to fill them as rapidly as possible to ensure that we can make a fully-informed decision about cystic fibrosis screening in babies as quickly as possible. As part of that work, I will happily meet my hon. Friend and any delegation that she wishes to bring. She will appreciate that the Government have to make assessments on the basis of the evidence and that we have to ensure that we are providing evidence-based care, both for screening programmes and for treatment across the board. The Government are also happy to continue working closely with interest groups, such as the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, to raise awareness throughout the NHS.
I have set out the considerable work that has been undertaken, but also the work that we have set in train in the next year to improve our knowledge and progress this matter. Our aim is to ensure that all children with cystic fibrosis have the best opportunity to lead fulfilling lives, that their families receive support and that we remain committed to providing effective and appropriate screening programmes for children. I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue and contributing to a stimulating debate, and I look forward to meeting her to discuss this subject shortly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Dropped Charges
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases have been dropped after an initial charge has been laid by the Director of Public Prosecutions, in each year from 1992 to 2000. [145221]

  The Solicitor-General
  The table shows the number of proceedings dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service in each year since 1992.

  Prosecutions dropped 1992–2000

  Magistrates courts

  Crown court

  Year ending December

  Discontinued

  As a percentage of completed cases

  Prosecutions dropped

  As a percentage of completed cases

  1992

  193,110

  13.3

  8,825

  7.8

  1993

  175,025

  12.8

  7,430

  7.8

  1994

  159,803

  11.7

  7,298

  8.0

  1995

  156,628

  12.0

  8,148

  8.1

  1996

  153,274

  12.0

  7,109

  7.4

  1997

  161,461

  12.2

  7,514

  7.2

  1998

  162,661

  12.0

  8,680

  9.4

  1999

  164,682

  12.1

  9,331

  10.7

  20001

  127,078

  12.6

  7,619

  11.9

  1 January-September only

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those contracts with a value in excess of £1 million entered into by the New Millennium Experience Company which have not complied with public procurement procedures. [141408]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Public procurement procedures are based on the presumption that competitive tendering should apply as the norm but recognise that in certain, exceptional circumstances single tender procurement is justified providing that value for money and probity criteria are met.

  In these respects the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that it has complied with public procurement procedures in the thousands of procurements of goods, works and services undertaken for the Millennium Experience project. Over 90 per cent. of procurements have been by competitive tender. Of those that have been single tender 10 were in excess of £1 million. Of those five were awarded to companies who had previously won work on the project through competitive tendering processes and were judged, for
  130W
  The table shows separately the number of defendants whose cases were discontinued in magistrates courts, and the number of defendants whose cases were dropped in the Crown court before a jury was sworn. The table also expresses these figures as a proportion of cases completed in each year.

  Discontinuance has remained stable at around 12 per cent. to 13 per cent. of cases completed in magistrates courts during the period under review. However, the proportion of cases dropped in the Crown court has increased over recent years, from 7.2 per cent. in 1997 to 11.9 per cent. in the period January-September 2000. This is believed to be because the abolition of live committals in April 1997 removed the opportunity of testing prosecution witnesses before a case reaches the Crown court.

  Charges in criminal proceedings are initially brought by the police rather than the Director of Public Prosecutions. Each case that the police send to the Crown Prosecution Service is then reviewed by a Crown Prosecutor to ensure that it meets the criteria for a prosecution set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  reasons of urgency and value for money, best placed to carry out necessary additional works and services. The single tender contracts awarded are:

  August 1998:
  Crown House—the Dome's Central Area and other area Secondary Mechanical work. (Crown had previously won a competitive tender).

  August 1998:
  N. G. Bailey—the Dome's Central Area electrical works (N. G. Bailey had previously won a competitive tender).

  October 1998:
  WCT Live—Design and event services.

  May 1999:
  Park Avenue Productions—Fit out of Global Zone (Park Avenue had won a competitive tender for design work on other zones but were subsequently moved to Global.

  August 1999:
  At Work/Carlton Beck—Additional zone exhibits relevant to the Shared Ground zone (At Work had won a competitive tender for design work on other zones).

  August 1999:
  SCS Interactive In-Timekeepers soft play zone.

  June 1999:

  Tiger Aspect—the Blackadder Film written and produced specifically for the Dome.
  131W
  September 2000:
  PricewaterhouseCoopers—Management and finance support for the Company's final quarter of operation, close down and decommissioning.

  October 2000:
  McAlpine Laing Joint Venture—Decommissioning work (The Joint Venture had previously won a competitive tender to project manage the construction of the Dome).

  November 2000:
  Henry Butcher (Auctioneers and Valuers)—Removal and sale of NMEC assets. Part of the value of the contract is based on a standard percentage of realisation value.

  There is an ongoing need for specialist professional advice and support as the New Millennium Experience Company progresses towards wind down of the Company, disposal of assets and decommissioning work. It is possible that the costs of certain other professional advisers (especially legal), who were appointed on grounds of urgency in the autumn may exceed £1 million by completion of wind down and decommissioning. In each case where this occurs the Company will continue to ensure that the rates charged are competitive, that value for money is delivered and that the necessary processes applicable to the extension of contracts in these circumstances are implemented.

  Lottery Funds
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been paid out in grants in total, from Lottery funds, to(a) London and (b) Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, Knowsley and St. Helens in (i) cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of the United Kingdom total. [145194]

  Kate Hoey
  The table shows the amounts paid to Lottery projects in London and in Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, Knowsley and St. Helens in cash terms and as a percentage of all awards. This information has been taken from my Department's National Lottery awards database, using information provided by the National Lottery distributing bodies.

  National Lottery awards made to the areas of London, Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, Knowsley and St. Helens since the Lottery began, by local authority

  Region/local authority

  National Lottery grant totals awarded in cash terms (£)

  Percentage of the United Kingdom total

  London

  2,356,719,474

  25

  Liverpool

  121,368,909

  1.3

  Wirral

  15,489,349

  0.2

  Sefton

  14,894,452

  0.2

  Knowsley

  10,319,142

  0.1

  St. Helens

  16,785,298

  0.2

  Total1

  168,538,008

  2.0

  1 Total for Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, Knowsley and St. Helens

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had on the future of the Millennium Dome; and what estimate he has made of the effects on tourism in the area of the future use of the Dome site. [144912]
  132W
  Janet Anderson
  The Government are currently in negotiation with Legacy plc, as preferred bidder for the Dome. If negotiations go well we hope to be in a position to exchange contracts in February. Legacy plc's proposals are for a high technology industrial campus or workspace, leisure and retail uses. No estimate has been made on the potential effects of Legacy plc proposals on tourism to the surrounding area.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to protect the physical security of the contents of the Millennium Dome prior to the conclusion of its sale agreement. [145016]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has enhanced on-site security and has implemented comprehensive checking and authorisation procedures to ensure that any assets leaving the site have proper sign-off. This includes the establishment of an Asset Protection Team whose role is to oversee the movement, protection, secure storage and eventual disposal of assets whether owned by a third party or by NMEC. A special vehicle inspection bay has been created to screen all vehicles leaving the site and there is now only a single exit point from which vehicles can leave.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the successful bidder for the site will be forbidden to demolish the Millennium Dome. [145417]

  Janet Anderson
  The Millennium Dome is safeguarded for a minimum of 15 years, as specified in the Competition brief, and as previously agreed under terms negotiated with Nomura.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much European funding has been obtained for tourism in(a) England, (b) north-west England and (c) Merseyside for 2001. [144909]

  Janet Anderson
  There are numerous potential sources of European funding that could benefit tourism in this country. For instance, economically depressed areas in the UK will benefit from over £6 billion of European regional funding under Objectives 1 and 2. Merseyside will receive £840 million of Objective 1 funding during the seven year programme to help economic development. Objective 2 funding totalling £500 million over this period will be providing help to parts of Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire and Cumbria. It is difficult to identify the precise amount of an award that would benefit a specific sector such as tourism. However, we have been advised by the North West Tourist Board that tourism in Sefton and Liverpool will benefit from an award of £1.5 million under Objective 1. There will also be support for Liverpool's bid for European Capital of Culture, Sefton's integrated tourism marketing initiative and the Merseyside Partnership's Merseyside Advantage strategy from the European Regional Development Fund.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for improving tourism in the Merseyside area in 2001. [144945]
  133W
  Janet Anderson
  This Department's national strategy, "Tomorrows Tourism", sets out a framework for the sustainable development of tourism throughout England, including Merseyside. As part of that strategy we provide funding via the English Tourism Council to support projects in the regions. The North West Tourist Board and local partners are responsible for delivering the regional strategy for their area. We have been advised by the Board that tourism will benefit from an award of £1.5 million to Sefton and Liverpool under Objective 1 (Sefton's share of the award is £400,000) and from European Regional Development Fund support for Liverpool's bid for the European Capital of Culture, for Sefton's integrated tourism marketing initiative and for the Merseyside Partnership's Merseyside Advantage Strategy.

  Advisory Committee on Public Appointments
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will publish the membership and biographical details of his Department's Advisory Committee on Public Appointments; [145168]

  (2) on what basis appointments are made to his Department's Advisory Committee on Public Appointments. [145172]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: My Department does not have an Advisory Committee on Public Appointments, but has a pool of Independent Assessors who provide independent scrutiny within the public appointments process as laid down in guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Commissioner's guidance allows Departments the flexibility to decide the criteria for selecting Independent Assessors and the method by which they are selected. We look for people with a wide range of backgrounds and appropriate experience who are able to bring an independent view to the appointments process. We also ensure that the list is representative of the public as a whole in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and disability.

  My Department currently has a list of 40 independent Assessors and details are as follows:
  Professor Dawn Ades: Professor of Art History and Theory, University of Essex
  John Adshead CBE: Group Personnel Director, Sainsbury's
  Dr. Eric Anderson FRSE: Chair, National Heritage Memorial Fund
  Dr. John Ashworth: Chair, British Library Board
  Averil Burgess OBE: Chair, Independent Schools Inspectorate and former Board Member, Museum of London
  Antony Butler: Director, Oxford University Careers Service
  Professor Averil Cameron CBE: Warden, Keble College, Oxford
  Sue Charteris: Freelance Consultant and former Chief Executive, Merton Borough Council
  Barry Cox: Deputy Chair, Channel Four
  Jon Davey: Chair, Media Matrix Partnership
  William Day: Chief Executive, CARE International UK
  Dame Elizabeth Esteve-Coll: Freelance Cultural Consultant. Former Vice Chancellor, University of East Anglia and former Director Victoria and Albert Museum
  Lord Matthew Evans CBE: Chair, Resource and Fabar and Faber Ltd.
  Right hon. Lord Faringdon: Commissioner, English Heritage
  134W
  Baroness Flather: Former local councillor and former Governor of Commonwealth Institute
  Professor Sir Brian Follett FRS: Vice Chancellor, University of Warwick
  Keith Foreman OBE: Independent Adviser to DfEE and ex Comprehensive School Head Teacher
  Richard J. Fries: Former Chief Charity Commissioner
  Jan Hall OBE: Partner, Spencer Stuart and Associates
  Sheila Hewitt: Board member, Radio Authority
  Richard Hooper: Chair, Radio Authority
  Judith Hunt OBE: Special Adviser, Local Government Association and Improvement and Development Agency
  Brian Hutchinson: Former Corporate Affairs Director. Allied Zurich
  Kate Jenkins: Chair, Kate Jenkins Associates and former senior Civil Servant
  Roger Laughton CBE: Head of School of Media, Arts and Communications, University of Bournemouth
  Janet Lewis-Jones: Freelance Consultant and Board Member of S4C
  David McDonnell: Chair, National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside
  Professor Anne McLaren: Research Associate, Wellcome/CRC Institute of Cancer and Development Biology and Board Member, Natural History Museum
  Stephanie Monk CBE: Group Personnel Director, Granada Compass Plc.
  Michael Moriarty CB: Former Deputy Chair, Radio Authority and former senior Civil Servant
  John Neill CBE: Chief Executive, Unipart Group of Companies
  Trevor Phillips OBE: Broadcaster and Member of the Greater London Authority
  Baroness Jill Piteathley OBE: Chair, New Opportunities Fund
  David Quarmby: Chair, British Tourist Authority
  Dr. Janet Ritterman: Director, Royal School of Music and Board Member of the Arts Council
  Dr. Ann Robinson: Former Director General, National Association of Pension Funds
  Peter Troughton: Chief Executive, First Arrow
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: Chair, English Nature and former Vice Chair BBC Governors
  Sir Rodney Walker: Chair, UK Sports Council.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on proposals to establish an alternative to the National Lottery. [145139]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The Government are happy for organisations or individuals to operate lotteries providing they comply with the provisions of the existing legislation. Under section 5 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 there can be only one operator of the National Lottery, although other organisations can run individual games with the agreement of the section 5 operator (which must act reasonably in its dealings with a section 6 applicant). The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 allows for four distinct types of lottery; society lotteries, local lotteries, private lotteries and small lotteries incidental to exempt entertainments. The larger society lotteries run by charities, sports clubs and local authorities must register with the Gaming Board for Great Britain. The maximum sale value of the tickets which may be sold in a single

  135W
  lottery is £1 million. The top prize which may be offered is £25,000 or 10 per cent. of its proceeds, whichever is the higher, and each lottery may sell no more than £5 million worth of tickets in a single year.

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the percentage funding is for each artistic discipline specified by the Arts Council to the regional arts boards. [145835]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Arts Council allocated funding to the regional arts boards on the basis of the RABs own business plan for the support of the arts in their respective regions and not on the basis of specified funding for individual art forms.

  Mr. Robert Bourne
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when officials in(a) his Department, (b) the Cabinet Office and (c) the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions were informed of Mr. Robert Bourne's donations to the Labour Party. [144716]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: Donations to political parties are not a factor in the assessment of bids or tenders for Government work. Decisions on the competition for the future use of the Dome have been taken on the basis of objective and independent advice on what bids best met the published competition criteria. I declared an association with Robert Bourne to my officials before consideration began in December 1999 of the bids which qualified under the competition. I included in my subsequent written declaration that Robert Bourne had made contributions to my Constituency Labour Party. On the advice of my officials, I removed myself from any part of the consideration of the qualifying bids and from the subsequent decisions on shortlisting and granting of preferred bidder status.

  Television Subtitling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the most recent statistics are that his Department has collated on the level of subtitling of all programmes broadcast on(a) BBC1, (b) BBC2, (c) ITV, (d) Channel 4 and (e) Channel 5. [145377]

  Janet Anderson
  From the most recent information available from the BBC, over 70 per cent. of BBC1 and over 65 per cent. of BBC2 is subtitled. From the latest figures available from the ITC, published in the Commission's Annual Report 1999, the level of subtitling of programmes in that year was 66 per cent. on ITV; 50 per cent. on GMTV; 60 per cent. on Channel 4; and 32 per cent. on Channel 5.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to compel United Kingdom manufacturers of television sets to include a tuner that can receive digital signals in every new television set. [145775]
  136W
  Janet Anderson
  The Government have no such plans, which could be contrary to our international commitments unless it is part of a European agreement. However, the proposal for the Directive on universal service and users rights relating to electronic communications networks and services stipulates in its annexe VI that all the television sets sold in Europe should have at least one open interface socket permitting the connection of a digital receiver.

  Millennium Festival (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Millennium festival in Scotland. [145894]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Lottery Grants
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the applications for National Lottery grants and the amounts refused by each(a) parliamentary constituency in Scotland and (b) Lottery board for each of the last five years. [145886]

  Kate Hoey
  We have contacted the National Lottery distributing bodies to request such information as they hold, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Kew Gardens (Quinquennial Review)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to conduct a Quinquennial Review of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. [146066]

  Ms Quin
  The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is managed by the Board of Trustees established by the National Heritage Act 1983 and has the status of an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body. I am today announcing the Quinquennial Review of this body which will evaluate its performance and status. The Review also meets a commitment under the Government's Better Quality Services initiative which requires Departments to review their services and activities over a five-year period to decide how best to improve quality and value for money.

  The terms of reference for the Review are as follows:
  to conduct an evaluation of the performance of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew since the last review in 1995;
  as part of the evaluation, to pay particular attention to the effectiveness of postgraduate horticultural training and the quality of public education activities; and to take account of the conclusions of the Science Audit being carried out in March 2001;
  to consider in the light of this evaluation and the views of customers and other stakeholders whether NDPB status remains the most cost-effective way of achieving its own and Departmental aims, as well as Government-wide aims such as those relating to science policy and Modernising Government;
  if the review concludes that the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew should continue to function as a NDPB, then to consider what changes, if any, are required to its operating framework in the

  137W
  light of the findings of the Review. If, however, the review concludes that a different delivery system would provide high quality, more effective and better value for money services, to set out the rationale and to recommend appropriate options to Ministers.

  The review will be conducted by a Review Team attached to MAFF's Chief Scientist's Group, working in consultation with the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and other Government Departments as appropriate.

  Interested parties are invited to submit their views to the Review Team by Monday 9 April 2001. Details of how to contact them are contained in the MAFF press notice issued today or on our website http://www.maff.gov.uk.

  GM Seeds
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the European Commission on legislative provisions concerning the adventitious presence of genetically modified seeds in seed 01 conventional plant varieties. [146065]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Commission has recently published a working paper on the presence of GM seeds in seeds of conventional varieties. The draft proposals include provisions on GM threshold levels, previous cropping requirements, isolation distances and labelling. Copies of the working paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  We will be consulting widely on these proposals.

  Abattoir Industry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the abattoir industry; and what matters were discussed. [143176]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The last specific occasion was on 30 November 2000, when the Date Based Export Scheme was the subject of discussion.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the principal changes his Department is seeking on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [143931]

  Action plan for farming

  Measure

  Value

  Accounted for as DEL or AME

  Proportion paid to farmers/other intended recipients to date

  Introduced a scheme to encourage the restructuring of the pig industry in order to improve its long-term viability. (UK wide)

  £26 million (in 2000–01)

  DEL

  —

  Pay to dairy farmers all the agrimonetary aid that EU rules permit this year only. (UK wide)

  £22 million (in 2000–01)

  AME

  99.9 per cent. (£21.9 million)

  Pay agrimonetary compensation to beef farmers of £22 million this year only. Payments will be made in connection with Beef Special Premium, Suckler Cow Premium and Extensification Payments for the 2000 scheme year. (UK wide)

  £22 million (in 2000–01 and 2001–02)

  AME

  39 per cent. (£8.6 million)

  Agrimonetary compensation to sheep farmers of £22 million this year in respect of 1999 scheme year claims. (UK wide)

  £22 million (in 2000–01 and 2001–02)

  AME

  100 per cent. (£22 million)

  138W
  Ms Quin
  Our goal is for agriculture to be:competitive, diverse and flexible in a world of increasingly open markets;
  responsive to consumer demand;
  environmentally sustainable;
  an integral part of the rural economy.

  Specific reforms needed will include:

  1. Decisions on market support to align EU prices with the world market and end reliance on subsidised exports;

  2. Decisions to remove constraints on EU farming that prevent the food and farming industries competing effectively on world markets eg milk and sugar quotas and compulsory set-aside;

  3. Decisions to develop the rural development regulation in order to deliver more effectively policy objectives for the environment and rural economies in ways which do not distort agricultural markets as well as to help EU farms to adjust to changes in market support; and

  4. Decisions concerning the level of CAP direct subsidies in order to meet budget constraints before and after enlargement and anticipated WTO requirements, and to release resources to deliver the reinforcement of the rural development regulation described.

  Professor Harriet Kimbell
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the comments made by Professor Harriet Kimbell at a departmental news conference concerning SEAC's meeting on 28 November 2000. [144345]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: No. Professor Kimbell's personal opinions do not fall within my ministerial responsibility.

  Farm Aid
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate, in respect of each component item of the farm aid package announced on 30 March 2000,(a) if it has been accounted for as DEL or AME expenditure and (b) what proportion has been paid to (i) farmers and (ii) other intended recipients to date. [144398]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Action Plan for Farming, launched at the Farming Summit on 30 March was supported by £203.5 million. The components of this, how they have been accounted for, and the proportion paid to farmers and other intended recipients to date are as listed.
  139W

  Action plan for farming

  Measure

  Value

  Accounted for as DEL or AME

  Proportion paid to farmers/other intended recipients to date

  Increase support for hill farmers beyond the level specified in the Rural Development Plans submitted to the Commission. (UK wide)

  £60 million (in 2000–01)

  DEL

  —

  Seek from the Commission an increase in the maximum weight per animal on which compensation is payable under the over-30-months scheme. (UK wide)

  £20 million (estimate) (in 2000–01)1

  DEL

  49 per cent. (£12.3 million estimated expenditure)

  Remove charges for dairy hygiene inspections in England as soon as the necessary legislation can be put in place

  £1 million (in 2000–01)

  DEL

  Value represents an estimated annual saving to industry

  Hold the increase in meat inspection charges for 2000–01 to the rate of inflation. (GB wide)

  £4.5 million (in 2000–01)

  DEL

  Value represents an estimated annual saving to industry

  Increase the rate of grant under MAFF's Farm Waste Grant Scheme from 25 per cent. of eligible expenditure (under which uptake has been low) to 40 per cent. (England only)

  £3.5 million (in 2001–02)

  DEL

  —

  The Government will double the Regional Development Agencies' Redundant Building Grant Programmes, which operates in Rural Priority Areas, to £8 million in 2000–01. (England only)

  £4 million (in 2000–01)

  DEL

  0.7 per cent. (£28K) (Quarter 1 figures)

  The Government will allocate £2.3 million to create in England a European Centre for organic fruit and nursery stock.

  £2.261 million (over two years: £0.3 million in 2000–01 and £1.961 in 2001–02)

  DEL

  12 per cent. (£273K)

  A single charge for authorisation to dispose of used sheep dip, equivalent to the current application charge of £85, should cover the full four-year period of the initial authorisation. This means that the current annual charge of £107 will not be payable during the first four-year period. (England and Wales)

  £4.7 million over four years2

  DEL

  56 per cent. (£2.65 million)— (estimated cash benefit in 2000–01)

  Business Restructuring in England:

  The Government will pump-prime the drive to improve the competitiveness of farmers by providing funding for business improvement, on a challenge basis, following the model of the Agriculture Development Scheme 1999

  £1 million (in 2000–01)

  DEL

  45 per cent. (£450K)

  The Government will provide funding of £1.2 million to Lantra (National Training Organisation for the Landbased Sector) to promote the economic benefits of training and to analyse the training needs of farm business

  £1.2 million (in 2000–01)3

  DEL

  52 per cent. (£935K)

  The Government will help farmers develop better business practices through tailored business advice. As farmers increasingly diversify their businesses, they will be able to draw on the wider expertise and services of the Small Business Service

  £6.5 million (in 2000–01)4

  DEL

  10 per cent. (£851K)

  The Government will continue to support the Rural Stress Information Network by extending for at least a further year the secondment of a MAFF official to that organisation. MAFF will also increase the provision of free advice to those farmers referred to it by certain organisations. The Government will increase its support to voluntary bodies dealing with rural stress on the basis of an action plan drawn up with them. The final payments, 25 per cent. (£125K), are due to be made by 1 March 2001.

  £0.5 million (in 2000–01)

  DEL

  75 per cent. (350K)

  Launch an electronic portal for farming

  £0.4 million (in 2000–01)

  DEL

  40 per cent. (160K)

  140W 141W

  Action plan for farming

  Measure

  Value

  Accounted for as DEL or AME

  Proportion paid to farmers/other intended recipients to date

  Business restructuring aid for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  £2 million (in 2000–01)

  DEL

  DARD—NAWAD— SERAD 100 per cent. (£1.046 million)5

  Total

  203.5

  —

  —

  1 Revised estimate now £25 million

  2 Estimated saving to industry

  3 Allocation now £1.8 million—includes element of hill support funding

  4 Allocation now £8.5 million—includes element of hill support funding

  5 In the course of 2000–01 the Scottish Executive has incurred additional costs of some £4 million towards advancing its electronic data transfer and service delivery systems, both of which offer significant improvements to farm business management in Scotland. The cost of these measures is greatly in excess of the £1.046 million provided for under the Action Plan for Farming

  Beef
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from Mr. Hugh Leman concerning the entry of imported over-30-month meat into the British food chain. [144318]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: None that I am aware of.

  Environmental Health Regulations
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions there were for breaches of(a) meat hygiene regulations and (b) pesticide safety regulations in each year from 1992 to 2000. [145246]

  Ms Quin
  In the year 1992 there were no prosecutions for breaches of meat hygiene regulations and four for breaches of pesticide safety regulations for which my Department was responsible. Other authorities will have had responsibility, especially up to 1 April 1995 when the Meat Hygiene Service was established and after 1 April 2000 when the Food Standards Agency was established. The relevant figures for subsequent years are:

  Year

  Meat

  Pesticides

  1993

  0

  11

  1994

  0

  8

  1995

  0

  10

  1996

  7

  0

  1997

  7

  4

  1998

  28

  4

  1999

  28

  9

  2000

  21

  1

  Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department has received on the death of a 12-year-old lion at Newquay Zoo from feline spongiform encephalopathy; what estimate he has made of the number of animals which have died from FSE; and if he will make a statement. [145351]

  Ms Quin
  The lion, which was born on 25 July 1987, and acquired by Newquay zoo in October 1997, had been suffering from lameness and increasing inco-ordination of the hind limbs from May 2000. It was euthanased in 142W
  August 2000 and the carcase examined at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA), Truro. Tissues were sent to pathologists at VLA Lasswade where the diagnosis of feline spongiform encephalopathy was made. This diagnosis was supported by further examinations carried out at VLA Weybridge.

  Post mortem examinations of domestic and exotic cats are routinely carried out by the VLA on behalf of MAFF, as part of the surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

  Cases confirmed to date are as follows:

  Domestic cat

  Cheetah

  Lion

  Ocelot

  Puma

  Tiger

  1990

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  10

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1993

  11

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  16

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1995

  8

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1996

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1997

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1999

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2000

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the non-departmental public bodies responsible to him which have duties relating to Scotland, indicating their budget and staffing levels. [145892]

  Ms Quin
  A list of the non-departmental public bodies that are sponsored by my Department and which have a remit covering Great Britain or the United Kingdom is set out in the annex.

  The remaining information is not held centrally in the form requested, but generally information on expenditure and staffing is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 2000" have recently been placed in the Libraries of the House.
  143W
  Non-Departmental Public Bodies with duties relating to Scotland Executive NDPBs:

  British Potato Council

  Horticultural Development Council

  Food From Britain

  Home-grown Cereals Authority

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  UK Register of Organic Food Standards

  Wine Standards Board of The Vintners' Company

  Advisory NDPBs:

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  Veterinary Products Committee

  Tribunals:
  Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

DEFENCE

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Defence Diversification Agency. [145997]

  Dr. Moonie
  We remain fully committed to defence diversification—the "spin-out" of defence technology to the civil sector for wider benefit. The Defence Diversification Agency (DDA) has made a very successful start in delivering that policy objective since its establishment in 1999. The implementation of our Public Private Partnership proposals for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) will make a further and very substantial contribution to defence diversification. It will be in the interest of "NewDERA" to exploit opportunities for the "spin-out" of defence technology to the civil sector. At the same time we shall want to ensure that the Defence Scientific and Technical Laboratory (DSIL), the part of DERA to be retained in the MOD, also contributes fully to defence diversification activity.

  Since the DDA currently operates as part of DERA, some reorganisation over the next few months is inevitable. Responsibility for the agency, we propose, will be transferred from DERA to MOD headquarters, from where it would continue to facilitate the achievement of our defence diversification objectives. It would ensure that opportunities for "spin-out", and also the "spin-in" of civil technology to the MOD, are disseminated and exploited, and that industry is assisted with its own diversification planning. A major part of diversification activities would in future be undertaken from within NewDERA and DSTL, by existing DDA staff operating from their current locations, continuing the work that they do now, and transferred to NewDERA and DSTL for that purpose.

  We shall work closely with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that the DDA continues to secure our policy objectives. Detailed new arrangements will now be worked out and we shall consult about the staffing
  144W
  implications in the normal way. In the light of experience of the new organisation, we shall consider further the establishment of a Defence Diversification Council.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what depleted uranium rounds were discharged for training purposes in Saudi Arabia on the Devil Dog Dragoon ranges in 1990–91; and if the ranges were cleared after firing. [145128]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: According to records held by my Department, a small number of DU rounds were fired at Devil Dog Dragoon Ranges in Saudi Arabia during January 1991. These munitions were fired for commissioning purposes, that is, firing at a soft canvas target in order to form a Mean Point of Impact, from which data could be obtained on the accuracy of the tank's main armament when firing this type of ammunition. The rounds fired were L26 120 mm Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) Challenger tank DU rounds, which were first deployed operationally during the Gulf Conflict.

  We do not have details of the numbers of rounds which may have been fired, or the precise dates of any such firings but contemporary authoritative records show that two areas within Devil Dog Dragoon Ranges were designated for the firing of tank main armaments, as well as for other large calibre rounds which contained no DU material. These ranges were designated T1 and T2. Contemporary records indicate that the clearance of any UK Unexploded Ordnance from these ranges was completed during March 1991.

  Thermobaric Weapons
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if animals will be used in the development of thermobaric weapons. [145370]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have nothing to add to the answer provided by my hoe. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 5 June 2000,Official Report, columns 17–18W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt).

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy towards the(a) development and (b) use by British armed forces of thermobaric weapons. [145371]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not have any weapons based on `thermobaric' munitions in its inventory. However, such weapons exist and it would therefore be irresponsible not to keep developments in this field under review, not least to develop protective measures for our personnel.

  We have asked industry to consider how best to provide an anti-structure capability for use by the infantry in the urban environment. It is possible that this solution may involve using blast rather than fragmentation effects.

  Should we decide to acquire such a weapon, we would ensure that this was fully in accordance with international law and our treaty obligations.

  Army Overstretch
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Army overstretch over the past three years. [145901]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 276W, to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Since that time, the percentage of the Army committed to operations has fallen a further percentage point to 21 per cent.

  Forces Numbers
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) trained strength and (b) trained requirement of the UK (i) regular armed forces, (ii) reserve forces and (iii) Territorial Army. [145902]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows.

  Full timed trained

  All services

  Naval service

  Army

  RAF

  Full time trained strength

  189,318

  38,604

  100,442

  50,272

  of which:

  Trained UK Regulars

  184,671

  38,127

  96,523

  50,021

  FTRS personnel1

  1,312

  477

  584

  251

  Trained Gurkhas

  3,335

  —

  3,335

  —

  Trained requirement

  198,043

  39,921

  106,133

  51,989

  for:

  Trained UK Regulars

  194,795

  39,921

  103,086

  51,788

  FTRS personnel1, 2

  201

  —

  —

  201

  Trained Gurkhas

  3,047

  —

  3,047

  —

  1 FTRS: Full Time Reserve Service personnel. Royal Air Force FTRS personnel are divided into Full Commitment (FC), Limited Commitment (LC and Home Commitment (HC)

  2 FC individuals serve in vacant regular posts, but LC and HC individuals count towards a separate requirement. The RAF requirement for FTRS personnel is for LC and HC only

  Note:

  Figures at 1 December 2000

  Reserves

  The reserve forces are split into Volunteer Reserves (which include the Territorial At my) and Regular Reserves. There is a requirement for the Volunteer Reserves but not for the Regular Reserves.

  Figures for the Volunteer Reserves

  Strength

  Requirement

  Naval service1

  2,574

  3,887

  Territorial Army2

  41,671

  41,204

  RAF3

  1,617

  2,149

  1 Naval service comprises Royal Naval Reserve at 31 December 2000 and Royal Marine Reserve at 10 January 2001

  2 Territorial Army figure does not include Non-Regular Permanent Staff in the TA

  3 RAF Figure is for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Strength at 1 December 2000, Requirement at 1 July 2000

  Figures for the Regular Reserves1

  Strength

  Naval service2

  9,870

  Army2

  33,966

  RAF2

  14,166

  1 Excludes Pensioners and Army Long Term Reserve

  2 At 1 December 2000

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with American officials on(a) the upgrading of Fylingdales and (b) the upgrading of early warning facilities other than Fylingdales. [145244]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have had a regular dialogue with the US Administration on the issue of National Missile Defence, and looks forward to continuing this with the next US Administration. The current US Administration has not sought our agreement to the use of facilities in this country for National Missile Defence. Nor would we expect any such request from the United States until and unless the next Administration decided to proceed with deployment of such a system.

  Ro-ro Contract
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the ro-ro ship construction contract recently awarded to the winning consortium can be sub-contracted from the German Flensburg yard to a Polish sub-contractor. [145245]

  Mr. Hoon
  The ro-ro shipbuilding contracts are a commercial matter between AWSR Shipping, the preferred bidder for the Strategic Sealift competition, and its subcontractors. However, I understand that Flensburger Shiffbau-Gesellschaft intend to build all of the four ships ordered from them by AWSR in their Flensburg yard.

  Vanguard Submarines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fatal accidents have occurred on board Vanguard-class submarines since they entered into service; and what health and safety procedures have been introduced following such accidents. [145359]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since the introduction of the Vanguard class, there has been only one instance of an onboard fatality. This was on 6 October 2000. As is usual in these circumstances, rigorous formal inquiries were instigated. These included a Board of Inquiry. The report from the Board of Inquiry is currently being considered by Senior Officers. Following the accident, and in advance of final recommendations, some additional precautionary measures have been introduced.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the size of the Territorial Army. [145900]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest available official figures give the strength of the Territorial Army as 41,671.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about trends in(a) Territorial Army centre closures since 1992 and (b) proposed closures of Territorial Army centres in 2000–01. [145904]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 1992 and the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), the number of Territorial Army Centres (TAC) remained almost constant, with any closures part of routine management of the Volunteer Estate. SDR resulted in a fundamental reorganisation, reduction and in some cases redeployment of the Territorial Army. Prior to SDR, there were 455 TACs. 342 have been retained for
  147W
  use by the TA, and 27 to accommodate cadet forces units. Of the 86 that will be disposed of, 14 of these have already been sold and a further 42 were scheduled for disposal in financial year 2000–01. It is now unlikely that all these will be sold in the current financial year.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were recruited into the(a) RAF, (b) Army and (c) Royal Navy on cadetships and how many of them (i) had their fees paid and (ii) received a salary, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [145903]

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

  Defence Spending (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence budget was spent in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available(a) in actual terms and (b) as a percentage of the total defence budget. [145898]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department is organised financially into Top Level Budgets reflecting major outputs rather than geographical location. Expenditure records reflect this organisation and are maintained for only commodities and Top Level Budgets. While we do not record all departmental expenditure by region, the Defence Bills Agency paid defence contractors based in Scotland some £691 million during 1999–2000, some 3 per cent. of Defence expenditure. The figures do not take account of purchases by sub-contractors.

  Scottish Personnel
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people from(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom are serving in Her Majesty's armed forces. [145905]

  Mr. Spellar
  Examination of available personal records of currently serving personnel1 has revealed the following information:

  Number

  (a) Scotland

  Naval service

  2,534

  Army

  12,853

  RAF

  5,698

  (b) The United Kingdom

  Naval service2

  42,505

  Army

  107,211

  RAF

  50,858

  1 Naval service data are based on current place of residence. This information is provided at the individual's discretion, therefore the records are unlikely to be complete. Army and RAF details are based on nationality at birth.

  2 Naval service total strength as at 1 December 2000 was 42,505 but this includes an unspecified number of Commonwealth citizens and Republic of Ireland nationals.

HEALTH

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority in England the budgeted allocations for disease modifying therapies for relapsing/remitting MS. [144860]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities are expected to meet the costs of drug treatments from their unified budgets. We do not hold centrally information on the amount each health authority may have allocated for specific treatments.

  Contaminated Meat
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the recent judgment in the case of the contaminated turkey and chicken meat in Hull; and if he will review the adequacy of penalties under food safety laws. [144861]

  Ms Stuart
  Putting condemned meat in the human food chain is a very serious matter and one that could affect human health.

  The charge in this case was one of unusually serious criminal activity involving food safety, based on an intention to defraud others for financial gain. The fresh meat sector is one of the most strictly regulated sectors of the food industry. Penalties under the Food Safety Act 1990 reflect the nature of the regulatory offences generally prosecuted under it. In this case, the appropriate charge was a common law conspiracy to defraud, where the penalties available are greater than those under specific food legislation. If the law needs strengthening to ensure better protection of human health, we will not hesitate to do this.

  Chief Medical Officer's Annual Report
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the Chief Medical Officer's Annual report was not published in autumn 2000. [145008]

  Yvette Cooper
  The last Chief Medical Officer's report was published in August 1998 by Sir Kenneth Calman shortly before he left office. The present Chief Medical Officer came into post in late September 1998. He has taken stock of the publications issued by the CMO and introduced a number of changes. He is currently exploring the opportunities for greater use of web-based publishing methods.

  After listening to a wide range of views he also intends to introduce changes to the format of his annual report. Although the previous format served its purpose well in the past, it is very detailed and it is not always clear in what areas action is being called for. The practice of the CMO's annual report containing descriptions of a wide range of Government policies which are contained in other documents added to the detailed nature of the reports.

  It is the intention of the CMO to produce a new format of the report. Although it was intended that the new report would be ready for the end of 2000, due to other pressing commitments it is hoped that it will now be published in the first quarter of this year. It will be shorter, with a clear

  149W
  focus on areas for action and in a more accessible form. The CMO has produced a number of major reports in the last eighteen months including: "An organisation with a memory: report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS"; "Supporting Doctors, Protecting Patients"; and "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility".

  NHS Consultants
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS consultant posts are unfilled; and if he will list the 10 consultancy categories with the most unfilled posts. [145305]

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

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2000. Vacancies in National Health Service trusts in England

  NHS consultants

  3 month vacancies

  3 month vacancy rates (%)

  Total consultants

  590

  2.7

  Anaesthetics consultant

  30

  0.9

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology consultant

  10

  1.0

  Surgical group consultant

  60

  1.5

  Dental group consultant

  20

  1.8

  General Medicine group consultant

  90

  2.0

  Paediatrics consultant

  40

  2.8

  Pathology group consultant

  50

  2.8

  Radiotherapy consultant

  10

  3.3

  Radiology group consultant

  70

  4.7

  Accident and Emergency consultant

  30

  5.8

  Psychiatry Group consultant

  190

  6.9

  Notes:

  1. Posts that have been vacant for 3 months or more

  2. Posts are rounded to the nearest 10

  3. Percentages are rounded to on decimal place

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2000

  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research into retinitis pigmentosa(a) is being and (b) has been recently funded by the Government. [144932]

  Mr. Denham
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry is currently funding two research projects into retinitis pigmentosa, at a cost of £494,000. In 1999–2000 MRC spent an estimated £4.10 million on projects relating to vision. The MRC also funds broader research programmes into genetics, an estimated £57 million in 1999–2000, which is of relevance to retinitis pigmentosa and many other diseases.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish a response to the Stewart report on mobile telecommunications. [145366]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Stewart report was published on 11 May 2000. On the same day we published our initial response on the Department of Health website welcoming the report and setting out its plans for implementing the recommendations. In December 2000 we published a public information leaflet on mobile phones and base 150W
  stations and announced the start of a new mobile phones and health research programme. Other initiatives that are already in place include information to local education authorities and schools and a programme of measurement and audit of mobile phone base stations.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the membership is of the mobile phone review group; what interests they have declared; and how many meetings of the group have been held since it was set up. [145864]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) (the Stewart group) was set up to investigate the public health implications of mobile phone technologies. The members were as follows:Chairman:
  Professor Sir William Stewart, FRS, FRSE
  Members:

  Professor L. J. Challis, OBE

  Professor L. W. Barclay, OBE, FREng

  Mrs. M.-N. Barton, MBE

  Professor C. Blakemore, FRS

  Professor D. N. M. Coggon

  Professor Sir David Cox, FRS

  Mr. J. Fellows

  Dr. M. Repacholi

  Professor M. Rugg, FRSE

  Professor A. J. Swerdlow

  Mr. T. R. K. Varma, FRCS (Ed.).

  Brief resumés for the members of the IEGMP were published in the report and are on www.iegmp.org.uk. They held a total of 15 meetings. Five of these meetings were open and their minutes are on the website. All members declared their interests at the outset. These records along with submitted written evidence to the group will shortly be lodged at the Public Record Office where they will be available for inspection. Their report was published on 11 May 2000. Copies are available in the Library. The report included a recommendation for a substantial research programme to be set up. This programme, jointly funded by Government and industry, was announced in December 2000 and will be launched at a meeting in central London on 9 February. The research will be undertaken under the direction of an independent programme management committee chaired by Sir William Stewart. Further details will be made available shortly.

  Ambulance Paramedics
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the result of his Department's review of the list of medicines that ambulance paramedics are allowed to administer on their own initiative; if he will indicate the time scale for implementing proposals arising from the review; and if he will make a statement. [145356]

  Ms Stuart
  On 16 November 2000, I announced changes in the law which allowed ambulance paramedics to administer parenterally a wider range of medicines to provide emergency treatment for patients suffering heart attacks and other life-threatening conditions.
  151W
  Ambulance paramedics are already authorised to administer a range of medicines for the immediate, necessary treatment of sick or injured persons. The new additions, such as the thrombolytic agent, Streptokinase, will enhance patient care especially where fast access to treatment can be the difference between life and death.

  Waiting Lists (Brent)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are on NHS waiting lists in the Brent Health Authority area; how many were on such lists in May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [145881]

  Mr. Denham
  The following figures relate to the total inpatient waiting list. Data for May 1997 are not available as data were collected only quarterly at that point. Therefore data are provided for the two nearest quarter months for Brent and Harrow Health Authority:

  Number

  March 1997

  11,481

  June 1997

  11,428

  November 2000

  8,421

  Source:

  QFO1 Quarterly return/monthly waiting times returns.

  NHS MRI Scanners: 1 September 20001

  England

  NHS Trust

  Eastern

  Addenbrooke's

  Eastern

  Bedford Hospitals

  Eastern

  East and North Hertfordshire

  Eastern

  Ipswich Hospital

  Eastern

  James Paget Healthcare

  Eastern

  Kings Lynn and Wisbech Hospitals

  Eastern

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital

  Eastern

  Mid Essex Hospitals

  Eastern

  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare

  Eastern

  Peterborough Hospitals

  Eastern

  Southend Hospital

  Eastern

  The Princess Alexandra Hospital

  Eastern

  West Hertfordshire Hospitals

  London

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals

  London

  Barts and The London

  London

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare

  London

  Epsom and St. Helier

  London

  Forest Healthcare

  London

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children

  London

  Guys and St. Thomas'

  London

  Havering Hospitals

  London

  King's Healthcare

  London

  Mayday Healthcare

  London

  North Middlesex Hospital

  London

  North West London Hospitals

  London

  Queen Mary's Sidcup

  London

  Royal Brompton and Harefield

  London

  Royal Free Hampstead

  London

  St. George's Healthcare

  London

  St. Mary's Hospital

  London

  The Hammersmith Hospitals

  London

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  London

  The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  London

  University College London Hospitals

  London

  West Middlesex University

  London

  Whittington Hospital

  North West

  Aintree Hospitals

  North West

  Blackburn, Hyndurn and Ribble Valley Healthcare

  North West

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital

  North West

  Central Manchester Healthcare

  North West

  Christie Hospital

  North West

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology

  Acute NHS Trusts
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute NHS trusts there are in England; and what population is served by each trust. [145625]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of acute National Health Service trusts in England is 197. Population figures are not available as the se trusts do not serve fixed catchment areas.

  MRI Scanners
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the acute NHS hospitals which have an MRI scanner on their premises. [145624]

  Yvette Cooper
  A list is given in the table of those acute National Health Service trusts which currently have an MRI scanner on their premises. The provision of 33 new MRI scanners to support the accurate diagnosis and staging of cancer patients is being funded through the New Opportunities Fund. As a result of the NHS Plan by 2004 there will be a further 50 new MRI scanners.
  153W

  NHS MRI Scanners: 1 September 20001

  England

  NHS Trust

  North West

  Countess of Chester Hospital

  North West

  East Cheshire

  North West

  North Manchester Healthcare

  North West

  Oldham

  North West

  Preston Acute Hospitals

  North West

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Hospitals University

  North West

  Salford Royal Hospitals

  North West

  Southport and Ormskirk Hospital

  North West

  The Manchester Children's Hospitals

  North West

  Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  North West

  Warrington Hospital

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford Hospitals

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Calderdale Healthcare

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Carlisle Hospitals

  Northern and Yorkshire

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  Northern and Yorkshire

  North Durham Healthcare

  Northern and Yorkshire

  North Tees and Hartlepool

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals

  Northern and Yorkshire

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  Northern and Yorkshire

  The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals

  South East

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals

  South East

  Brighton Healthcare

  South East

  East Kent Hospitals

  South East

  Eastbourne Hospitals

  South East

  Frimley Park Hospital

  South East

  Hastings and Rother

  South East

  Isle of Wight Healthcare

  South East

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells

  South East

  Medway

  South East

  Mid Sussex

  South East

  Milton Keynes General Hospital

  South East

  North Hampshire Hospitals

  South East

  Northampton General Hospital

  South East

  Nuffield Orthopaedic

  South East

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital

  South East

  Portsmouth Hospitals

  South East

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals

  South East

  Royal Naval Hospital Haslar

  South East

  Royal Surrey County Hospital

  South East

  South Buckinghamshire

  South East

  Southampton University Hospitals

  South East

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital

  South East

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare

  South East

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare

  South East

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals

  South West

  East Gloucestershire

  South West

  East Somerset

  South West

  North Bristol

  South West

  Plymouth Hospitals

  South West

  Poole Hospitals

  South West

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals

  South West

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals

  South West

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare

  South West

  Royal United Hospital Bath

  South West

  Salisbury Healthcare

  South West

  South Devon Healthcare

  South West

  Swindon and Marlborough

  South West

  Taunton and Somerset

  South West

  United Bristol Healthcare

  South West

  West Dorset General Hospitals

  Trent

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals

  Trent

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montague Hospital

  Trent

  North East Lincolnshire

  Trent

  Northern General Hospital

  Trent

  Nottingham City Hospital

  Trent

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital

  Trent

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals

  Trent

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals

  Trent

  University Hospitals of Leicester

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Children's Hospital

  West Midlands

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull (Teaching Trust)

  154W 155W

  NHS MRI Scanners: 1 September 20001

  England

  NHS Trust

  West Midlands

  Burton Hospitals

  West Midlands

  City Hospital (incorporating the Birmingham City Hospital)

  West Midlands

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals

  West Midlands

  North Staffordshire Hospital

  West Midlands

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital

  West Midlands

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital

  West Midlands

  The Princess Royal Hospital

  West Midlands

  University Hospital Birmingham

  West Midlands

  Walsgrave Hospitals

  Medicines Directive
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 20 December 2000,Official Report, column 196W, (1) what steps he plans to take to provide a secure regulatory framework on the market for those products which are safe combinations of herbal remedies and food ingredients; and if he will make a statement; [145568]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 20 December 2000, Official Report, column 196W, if it is his policy to promote within discussions on the proposed Traditional Use Medicines Directive efforts to reduce the 30 year qualifying period for the demonstration of traditional use to a shorter period that reflects the conditions of the existing UK market; [145582]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 20 December 2000, Official Report, column 196W, if it is his policy to promote within the discussions on the proposed Traditional Use Medicines Directive the objective of extending its scope to include products which are combinations of herbs with other ingredients and which have been on the market for the qualifying period (a) as part of the combination in question or (b) as an ingredient separate from the one with which it is to be combined; [145581]

  (4) what response the Medicines Control Agency has made to the European Commission in its call for comments on the draft Traditional use Medicines Directive; and if he will arrange for that response to be published in the Official Report. [145389]

  Ms Stuart
  Our priority in continuing European discussions on the proposed directive is to achieve a secure regulatory regime for traditional herbal remedies. We are aware that there are also some traditional medicines which consist wholly or partly of non-herbal ingredients. Our current position is that, once the directive goes beyond relatively discrete categories such as traditional herbal remedies, it may become more difficult to contain the wider public health and regulatory consequences. We therefore wish to continue to review the developing shape of the directive and the implications for overall medicines regulation before firmly committing ourselves to supporting the principle that coverage should extend more widely.

  We are also considering carefully our detailed position on the definition of traditional use, including the qualifying time period, and on criteria which might apply in the case of combinations. One general consideration is that the normal regulatory requirements for medicines include demonstration of efficacy. While we have
  156W
  advocated in Europe the specific case for lifting the requirement for efficacy in the case of genuinely traditional herbal remedies, we would have concerns about the potential implications if the parameters for traditional use were set so loosely that a very wide range of medicinal products were no longer required to demonstrate efficacy.

  At this stage we do not yet know the views of other member states on specific issues relating to combination products. We would expect a clearer picture to emerge over the coming months as European discussions continue. The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has submitted our initial response to the European Commission on the preliminary draft of the proposed directive. Copies of the MCA's letter will be placed in the Library. We will continue our current consultative approach with herbal interest groups.

  Cancer
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the recently financed extra money for cancer care will be targeted in(a) the West Midlands and (b) Coventry. [144973]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a national investment of £450 million earmarked for cancer and heart services which will help to raise standards of care and cut waiting times for treatment.

  Each health authority, in consultation with National Health Service trusts, will need to draw up an agreed policy for cancer services and report on their plans to use the money through the service and financial framework process.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the recently announced extra money for cancer care will be targeted at specific forms of cancer; and which research institutes and sites of excellence will benefit from the additional money. [144974]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Plan announced that health authorities will receive an additional £280 million in 2001–02, £407 million in 2002–03 and £570 million by 2003–04 for improving cancer services as set out in the National Health Service cancer plan.

  The plan sets out the priorities for cancer services including improved prevention measures; increasing the cancer work force; reducing waiting times for diagnosis and treatment; introducing the most effective treatments (including implementing recommendations by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on anti-cancer drugs and implementing evidence-based guidance on

  157W
  effective service delivery); updating cancer equipment, and reorganising delivery of care. The aim is that, as the plan is implemented, patients with all forms of cancer will experience prompt access to treatment and care based on up-to-date evidence. Early action will include implementation of recent and forthcoming guidance on upper gastrointestinal, urological and haematological cancers; new waiting times targets to ensure rapid access to treatment for people with breast cancer, childhood cancers, testicular cancer and leukaemia; and the start of the roll out of the breast screening programme to women aged 65–70.

  All centres of research excellence will benefit from the extra money announced for cancer care. In addition by 2003, we will be investing an additional £20 million each year in the new National Cancer Research Network

  Health authority

  1999–2000 allocation per unweighted head of population £

  2000–01 allocation per unweighted head of population £

  Increase between 1999–2000 and 2000–01 Percentage

  Avon

  580

  639

  10.1

  Barking and Havering

  658

  726

  10.4

  Barnet

  637

  690

  8.3

  Barnsley

  670

  733

  9.4

  Bedfordshire

  554

  608

  9.7

  Berkshire

  530

  583

  10.0

  Bexley and Greenwich

  681

  748

  9.9

  Birmingham

  658

  724

  10.0

  Bradford

  642

  707

  10.2

  Brent and Harrow

  670

  736

  9.9

  Bromley

  613

  670

  9.2

  Buckinghamshire

  524

  575

  9.7

  Bury and Rochdale

  649

  721

  11.0

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  641

  696

  8.6

  Cambridgeshire1

  —

  595

  n/a

  Cambridge and Huntingdon1

  517

  —

  n/a

  Camden and Islington

  856

  953

  11.3

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  647

  702

  8.5

  County Durham

  677

  745

  10.1

  Coventry

  625

  690

  10.4

  Croydon

  606

  663

  9.3

  Doncaster

  671

  734

  9.4

  Dorset

  640

  694

  8.3

  Dudley

  593

  650

  9.7

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  698

  764

  9.5

  East and North Hertfordshire

  558

  611

  9.5

  East Kent

  667

  726

  8.9

  East Lancashire

  683

  749

  9.6

  East London and The City

  775

  860

  11.0

  East Norfolk1

  602

  —

  n/a

  East Riding

  616

  677

  10.0

  East Surrey

  596

  653

  9.7

  East Sussex Brighton and Hove

  680

  738

  8.5

  Enfield and Haringey

  683

  746

  9.1

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  713

  777

  8.9

  Gloucestershire

  595

  645

  8.4

  Herefordshire

  591

  643

  8.9

  Hillingdon

  627

  683

  8.9

  Isle of Wight

  730

  793

  8.6

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  730

  815

  11.6

  Kingston and Richmond

  621

  680

  9.5

  Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

  779

  868

  11.5

  Leeds

  638

  701

  9.8

  Leicestershire

  557

  611

  9.7

  Lincolnshire

  615

  664

  7.9

  Liverpool

  747

  814

  8.9

  Manchester

  759

  830

  9.3

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

  670

  734

  9.5

  158W
  (NCRN) and an extra £4 million each year on prostate cancer research. The NCRN will, among many other things, further integrate research and cancer care.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2000,Official Report column 43W, on Government funding to health authorities, how much the funding allocation has been to each health authority per unweighted head of population for (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) the percentage rise or fall between the two years. [145368]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authority allocations per unweighted head of population for 1999–2000, 2000–01, and the percentage increase between the two years are given in the table.
  159W

  Health authority

  1999–2000 allocation per unweighted head of population £

  2000–01 allocation per unweighted head of population £

  Increase between 1999–2000 and 2000–01 Percentage

  Morecambe Bay

  659

  718

  8.9

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  705

  773

  9.6

  Norfolk1

  —

  658

  n/a

  North and East Devon

  629

  684

  8.8

  North and Mid Hampshire

  527

  575

  9.0

  North Cheshire

  651

  703

  8.0

  North Cumbria

  623

  681

  9.4

  North Derbyshire

  619

  675

  9.2

  North Essex

  578

  634

  9.8

  North Nottinghamshire

  622

  673

  8.3

  North Staffordshire

  646

  714

  10.5

  North West Anglia1

  602

  —

  n/a

  North West Lancashire

  694

  760

  9.4

  North Yorkshire

  587

  638

  8.8

  Northamptonshire

  581

  632

  8.8

  Northumberland

  635

  695

  9.4

  Nottingham

  607

  668

  10.1

  Oxfordshire

  519

  573

  10.3

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  593

  649

  9.5

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  677

  735

  8.5

  Rotherham

  658

  721

  9.6

  Salford and Trafford

  694

  758

  9.2

  Sandwell

  672

  740

  10.1

  Sefton

  692

  768

  10.9

  Sheffield

  684

  743

  8.6

  Shropshire

  584

  635

  8.8

  Solihull

  584

  638

  9.1

  Somerset

  596

  651

  9.1

  South and West Devon

  643

  699

  8.8

  South Cheshire

  601

  654

  8.9

  South Derbyshire

  591

  651

  10.1

  South Essex

  584

  645

  10.6

  South Humber

  643

  694

  8.0

  South Lancashire

  608

  668

  9.8

  South Staffordshire

  566

  615

  8.7

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  589

  642

  9.1

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  692

  755

  9.1

  Stockport

  611

  670

  9.6

  Suffolk

  576

  626

  8.7

  Sunderland

  699

  768

  9.8

  Tees

  671

  736

  9.7

  Wakefield

  649

  714

  10.0

  Walsall

  650

  712

  9.6

  Warwickshire

  590

  641

  8.7

  West Hertfordshire

  595

  647

  8.7

  West Kent

  575

  629

  9.5

  West Pennine

  660

  726

  9.9

  West Surrey

  577

  633

  9.7

  West Sussex

  622

  678

  9.0

  Wigan and Bolton

  652

  719

  10.3

  Wiltshire

  569

  621

  9.3

  Wirral

  700

  770

  10.1

  Wolverhampton

  662

  724

  9.3

  Worcestershire

  572

  619

  8.3

  England total

  629

  688

  9.4

  1 Figures between the two years are not comparable due to the merger of the former North West Anglia HA into the new HAs of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk.

  Autism
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent in the NHS in the last year for which figures are available on treating people with autism; what research his Department has commissioned and is undertaking into the causes of autism; and if he will make a statement. [145420]
  160W
  Mr. Hutton
  Data on National Health Service expenditure on treating people with autism are not held centrally.

  There is a large volume of research on all aspects of autism. Details of projects can be found on the National Research Register (NRR), which also contains information on projects and trials funded by the Medical

  161W
  Research Council (MRC) and other research funders. The NRR shows that there are currently 51 ongoing and 82 completed projects on autism. The MRC (which is funded mainly by the Government) recently announced that it has provided £344,000 to fund one of the largest studies of the causes of autism ever attempted.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children suffer from autism; and what proportion this represents of children(a) in total and (b) in each region. [145422]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is widely accepted that the estimated prevalence rate of classic autism is between four and five per 10,000 population. Prevalence of all autistic spectrum disorders is more difficult to estimate but could be as high as 91 per 10,000. These incidence figures would imply that, in England, between 5,000 and 6,000 children up to 18 years of age are affected by classic autism and that up to 110,000 children may be affected by autistic spectrum disorders. We have no evidence of variations in the incidence of autism across regions.

  Scientific Staff
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the recruitment of(a) trainee and (b) trained scientific staff by the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [145407]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Advisory Group for Scientists and Technicians has been charged with developing plans to improve work force planning, education, training and career development among that group of staff. The Department is also developing a specific strategy for improving recruitment and retention, liaising closely with employers, professional bodies and trade unions to raise the profile of the work of scientists.

  The National Health Service Careers Service, including the website http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk has been extended to include scientists and technicians. A new generic scientists and technicians careers leaflet has also been prepared.

  To address particular recruitment and retention problems in pathology laboratories pay increases of between 7.3 per cent. and 16.7 per cent. have been offered from April 2001 to over 6,000 trainee Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers (MLSOs), MLSO1s and MLSO2s. Other scientific and technical staff have been offered a 3.7 per cent. increase.

  Food Labelling
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation on food labelling to make it an offence to remove labels when repackaging foods and to require labels to indicate(a) country of origin, (b) country of production and packing and (c) whether the produce is organic. [144757]

  Ms Stuart
  Relabelling when repackaging food is generally necessary in order to ensure that the label gives accurate information on the repackaged product. Failure to remove the original label risks causing confusion. Misleading labelling does give rise to an offence.
  162W
  Origin labelling rules are harmonised at European level. We are actively pressing for these rules to be amended to improve the amount and clarity of origin information on food labels. In the meantime, guidance issued by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in February last year, and placed in the Library, makes clear that origin labelling must be carefully worded to avoid confusion between the origin of ingredients and the place of final processing.

  Produce that is organic is already generally identified. Organic food production is strictly regulated by written standards. It is illegal to offer for sale any food described as organic unless it has been produced in full conformity with European rules by registered producers.

TREASURY

  Listed Church Buildings
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list by region the number of churches within each denomination which will be entitled to claim VAT reduction on repairs to listed church buildings; [144981]
  (2) if he will list the number of churches within each denomination which will be entitled to claim VAT reduction on repairs to listed church buildings. [144982]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Disadvantaged Groups (Scotland)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to promote enterprise among disadvantaged groups in disadvantaged areas in the West of Scotland. [145772]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government aim to promote enterprise among disadvantaged groups in all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have undertaken to consult on a number of tax incentives designed to increase private investment in high unemployment areas, including the proposal by the Social Investment Task Force for a community investment tax credit.

  Specific Scottish measures for promoting enterprise among disadvantaged groups in the West of Scotland are a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Income Tax (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people in Scotland paid no income tax in the last year for which figures are available; [145656]
  (2) how much revenue in(a) income tax and (b) National Insurance contributions was raised from the (i) top 1 per cent., (ii) top 5 per cent., (iii) top 10 per cent. and (iv) bottom 50 per cent. of taxpayers in Scotland since May 1997. [145657]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) on 29 November 2000,Official Report, column 705W.

  VAT
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from heritage groups about the level of VAT charged on repair work. [145587]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Ministers have received many representations from heritage groups and individuals about VAT on repair work, but details of the numbers are not available.

  IMF
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish the 1999–2000 report on UK operations at the International Monetary Fund. [145926]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I am today publishing the second Annual Report to Parliament on UK operations at the IMF. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Montserrat
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the means by which her strategy paper for Montserrat aims to improve the quality of life of those inhabitants living by an active volcano. [145853]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 10 January 2001,Official Report, columns 1061–62.

  The Government of Montserrat/DFID Country Policy Plan sets out how our assistance has already helped and will continue to help with sustained economic and social recovery in the north of the island. All the essential facilities for normal life (utilities, road, health, education, housing) are now in place. The volcano, however, continues to pose a threat to the south of the island.

  Regional Symposia and Conferences
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department gives to regional education symposia and conferences in developing areas of the world. [145735]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department's work in education is focused on the attainment of the two International Development Targets for education (universal primary education by 2015 and gender equality in primary and secondary education by 2005) and helping provide developing countries with an essential framework for skills acquisition and training provision. International and regional conferences which promote these objectives are eligible for DFID support. The level and nature of our support (e.g. financial, and/or DFID participation) is dependent on the relevance, likely impact and requirements of the conference.

  Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the review of the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan. [145745]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC) has now submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State its review report. This makes a number of recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the CSFP and enhancing its contribution to the development of DFID partner countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting shortly with the CSC Chairman to discuss these findings and their implementation.

  Anti-corruption Bureaux
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much assistance her Department provides to support anti-corruption bureaux in developing countries; and if she will list them. [145361]

  Clare Short
  Our planned and operational support for anti-corruption bureaux in developing countries totals £11.415 million since 1998 and includes support in Kenya, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Zambia, Uganda, Pakistan and Malawi.

  Support for anti-corruption bureaux is normally only one part of wider programmes of activity to bear down on corruption.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sam Marshall
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what communication he has received from the Coroner concerning the Sam Marshall case in the last 12 months; and what courses are available to him to enable Crown agents who may have evidence of criminal acts to give testimony before the Coroner without facing prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. [142320]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Office has no record of receiving any correspondence from the Coroner concerning the Sam Marshall case in the last 12 months.

  In Northern Ireland, Rule 8(1) of the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1963 provides that a coroner has a discretion to examine, at an inquest, any person tendering evidence who is likely to have knowledge of the facts relating to the means by which the deceased came to his death. However, no witness at an inquest is obliged to answer any question tending to incriminate himself in any potential criminal charge (Rule 9(1) of the above Rules).

  Under the Official Secrets Act 1989 a Crown Servant only commits an offence if he discloses damaging information without lawful authority which, by virtue of section 7, means otherwise than in accordance with his official duty. By virtue of section 9 of the Act no prosecution may be brought except with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONW EALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142236]

  Mr. Vaz
  We hold no information of the kind sought by my hon. Friend. The mission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to promote the national interests of the United Kingdom and to contribute to a strong world community. For details of the Government's achievements in meeting its foreign policy targets, the following page of the FCO website may be helpful: http://www.fco.gov.uk/directory/dyitpage.asp?page=108

  EU Bishops' Conferences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what EU moneys are distributed to the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community; what the objectives of that organisation are; and when he last met representatives of that organisation. [144629]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is within the remit of the European Commission to decide on the targeting of such grants. I therefore suggest the hon. Member contacts the Commission directly for further information on individual recipients.

  Eurofacit Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the prototype zones developed under the Eurofacit programme, for providing information on the euro. [144633]

  Mr. Vaz
  According to the European Commission, among the regions and cities operating projects at the end of 2000 were the Veneto region (Italy), Ixelles (Belgium) and Lille (France).

  For further information, the hon. Member may wish to contact the European Commission directly.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list each proposed new provision, in the provisional text of the Treaty of Nice, where unanimity is changed for a qualified majority vote, indicating for each(a) the proposed Nice, amended current treaty article, and Nice treaty declaration, (b) the purpose of the powers in each existing and new provision, (c) the reasons for Her Majesty's Government's acceptance of each provision and (d) the expected impact of the relevant provision; [144818]

  (2) if he will list the provisions in the provisional text of the Treaty of Nice which specify that Article 251 of the Community Treaty shall apply, indicating in respect of each (a) the purpose of the Treaty power so authorised and (b) requirements of vote mode in each vote in (i) a European or Ministerial Council and (ii) the European Parliament; [144819]
  166W
  (3) if, in respect of the provisional text of the Treaty of Nice, he will list each item where a change in voting procedure from unanimity to qualified majority voting has been agreed, indicating in each case (a) the article concerned, (b) the purpose and scope of the article and (c) the reasons underlying the Government's support for the change; [144890]

  (4) if he will list in respect of the provisional text of the Treaty of Nice the changes in the voting procedure from unanimity to qualified majority in the areas of (a) freedom, security and justice, (b) finance and the single market and (c) other areas in which decisions will be determined by qualified majority at the relevant Council of Ministers. [144892]

  Mr. Vaz
  For a detailed list of the articles that were extended to qualified majority voting (including those that will also become subject to co-decision with the European Parliament) at the Nice European Council, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 9 January 2001,Official Report, columns 510–12W.

  In all cases the Government supported the moves to QMV as being in the interests of the United Kingdom. These moves will make decision-making easier in an enlarged EU.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the Government assented to amendments to Article 214 of the Treaty of the European Community which would make the appointment of the President of the European Commission by the European Council subject to a form of qualified majority voting; and when in 2000 a statement giving notice of this intention was made. [144743]

  Mr. Vaz
  In the White Paper "IGC: Reform for Enlargement" the Government made clear its commitment to the effective political and administrative leadership of the College of Commissioners. Making the appointment of the President of the European Commission subject to qualified majority voting will help to ensure that the best candidate, rather than the one most acceptable to all, is selected as the President.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate each change in voting procedure from unanimity to qualified majority contained in the provisional text of the Treaty of Nice which was initially opposed(a) by the UK Government and (b) by other Governments, together with the respective reasons for such opposition. [144891]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK approached each proposed move to qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis. The Government support the moves to QMV in the Treaty of Nice as being in the UK's interests. We successfully maintained the UK veto in areas of key national interest, such as tax, social security, Treaty change, defence, the UK's border controls and Own Resources.

  The position of other member states to changes is a matter for the relevant Governments concerned.

  EU Commissioners
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the Government assented to the amendment of Article 217 of the Treaty of the European Communities giving additional
  167W
  powers to the President of the Commission (a) to restructure the duties and responsibilities of each member of the Commission, (b) to appoint its vice-presidents and (c) to obtain with the approval of the Commission the resignation of any Commissioner. [144744]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government strongly support reform of the Commission. These Treaty changes are designed to help the Commission function more effectively, particularly after enlargement.

  Giving the President of the Commission the power to restructure the duties and responsibilities of each member of the Commission and appoint its vice-presidents will enable the President to organise the College of Commissioners in the most effective way possible. The President's power to obtain with the approval of the Commission the resignation of any Commissioner strengthens the voluntary undertaking that all members of the current Commission have given, that if the President asks him/her to resign she/he will do so. This will help to strengthen the accountability of individual Commissioners.

  Treaty of Nice
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) where and when he expects the final text of the Treaty of Nice to be signed; and who will sign it on behalf of the United Kingdom; [144856]

  (2) when the Government will (a) publish and (b) sign the final text of the Treaty of Nice; [144829]

  (3) if he will publish the text of the final version of the forthcoming Treaty of Nice as a Command Paper, prior to a substantive debate on it in the House. [144894]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Treaty of Nice will be signed by representatives of all 15 member states. Specific details about the time and place have not yet been decided, but legal and linguistic experts are currently expected to finalise the text by around the middle of February. Signature will follow shortly thereafter.

  Up to date versions of the Treaty text are available on the website www.europ.eu.int and in the Libraries of each House. Following signature the Treaty will be submitted to Parliament in the form of a Command Paper in the usual way.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a White Paper listing each amendment, declaration and obligation contained in the Treaty of Nice together with an assessment of their implications and an explanation of the reasons underlying the Government's support for them. [144830]

  Mr. Vaz
  The successful negotiation of the Treaty of Nice was a major achievement, as the Prime Minister set out in his statement to the House on 10 December and as I explained to the European Scrutiny Committee in an evidence session on 9 January. Once the final text of the Treaty has been signed it will be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper, and accompanied in the usual way by an Explanatory Memorandum.
  168W
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the textual and linguistic amendments agreed to the conclusions of the provisional text of the Treaty of Nice published on 12 December 2000. [144855]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Treaty of Nice document SN 533/1/00 REV 1 contains the clerical corrections to the draft Treaty which were examined at the meetings of the Permanent Representatives Committee on 20 and 21 December 2000. It can be found on the website www.europa.eu.int. Legal and linguistic editing is due to commence shortly.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to Cm 4595, "IGC, Reform for Enlargement", concerning the provisions for flexibility with the European Union available since 1997, if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the nature of the decisions taken and procedures used to authorise them, indicating the changes proposed in the provisional Treaty of Nice concerning such authorisations. [144745]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government strongly support the new enhanced co-operation arrangements. Though their use is likely to remain exceptional, they provide the EU with an element of flexibility that should increase its efficiency while preserving the Single Market and avoiding the emergency of an inner core.

  For the precise details of the changes proposed concerning authorisations, I refer my hon. Friend to the provisional text of the Treaty of Nice which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  European Council Meetings
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the proposal to change the current arrangements for meetings of European Councils in the member states holding the presidency; and if it is current practice for such member states to choose the location of each meeting and be responsible for its organisation. [144854]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is current practice for member states to choose the location of European Council meetings during their Presidency, and to be responsible for their organisation.

  The Government support the move from 2002 to holding one European Council meeting per Presidency in Brussels, and from an EU of 18 to holding all formal meetings of the European Council in Brussels. This will help contribute to more efficient and cost-effective meetings.

  Official Journal of the European Community
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy in respect of the change in title of the Official Journal of the European Community to that of the Official Journal of the European Union. [144746]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government support the change: the Official Journal covers matters concerning the European Union as a whole rather than just the European Community.

  Entry Clearance Interviews
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to reduce the length of time that spouses of UK citizens are having to wait for entry clearance interviews in Islamabad; and if he will make a statement. [144724]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The waiting time for spouse visa applications in Islamabad stood at 17 weeks at 31 December 2000. This compares with a waiting time of 39 weeks at 31 December 1999. This waiting period exceeds the target time by five weeks, but is expected to be within it by the end of March. The waiting times for all other categories of settlement applications have, during 2000, been brought within the target times. These are significant reductions which have been achieved in a year during which the overall number of applications in Islamabad has grown by 28 per cent.

  Staff in Post continue to do all they can to reduce further all waiting times. The Post is currently fully staffed; new procedures have been introduced to enable more decisions to be made more quickly on all settlement applications; a new standard visa software package is being installed; and the new reception arrangements introduced in June 2000 are to be further extended so that the increasing number of new applications can be dealt with on the day of application.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Turkish Government about the arrest in Cyprus of Mr. Panicos Tsiakourmas; and if he will make a statement. [145159]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK Government regard the detention of Panicos Tsiakourmas as a very serious matter. Our High Commissioner has made strong representations to Mr. Dentkash about the circumstances of Mr. Tsiakourmas' arrest. We have also raised our concerns with the Turkish Authorities in Nicosia, Ankara and London. I met Mrs. Tsiakourmas and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on 9 January 2001. We will continue to raise the issue until it is resolved satisfactorily.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the British High Commissioner in Cyprus about the detention of Mr. Panicos Tsiakourmas in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [145437]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our High Commissioner in Nicosia has provided the Foreign Secretary and me with regular reports on the detention of Mr. Tsiakourmas. Our officials are in daily telephone contact with him and I met Mrs. Tsiakourmas on 9 January. The Government regard the detention of Mr. Tsiakourmas as a very serious matter. Our High Commissioner has made strong representations to Mr. Denktash about the circumstances of Mr. Tsiakourmas' arrest. We have also raised our concerns with the Turkish authorities in Nicosia, Athens and London. We will continue to raise the issue until it is resolved satisfactorily.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus. [R] [145447]
  170W
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the Republic of Cyprus. [145441]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Cyprus. I hope to visit in March 2001.

  Ghana
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent parliamentary and presidential elections in Ghana. [145186]

  Mr. Hain
  Presidential and parliamentary elections took place in Ghana on 7 December. Opposition leader John Kufuor, New Patriotic Front Party (NPP), polled the most votes (48.44 per cent.) but failed to secure the necessary 50 per cent. vote to win the first round. Vice President John Mills of the ruling National Democratic Congress took 44.8 per cent. In parallel parliamentary elections, the NPP achieved a majority taking 97 seats against the NDC's 90 out of a total of 200. Election day was generally peaceful with a few reports of violence and little sign of electoral malpractice. Overall turnout was estimated at 60–65 per cent.

  The second round run-off between Kufuor and Mills took place on 28 December. Kufuor won taking 57 per cent. of the votes cast. The atmosphere in the second round was tense. Although violent incidents occurred in some NPP dominated areas, the security forces largely behaved in a non-partisan way. The electoral process was again considered to have been free fair and transparent and to have reflected the will of the Ghanaian people.

  The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) attended the first round of elections as an official observer.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with American officials on British facilities for National Missile Defence by the United States. [145307]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have had a regular dialogue with the current US Administration on the issue of US National Missile Defence. We look forward to continuing this with the next US Administration.

  The current US Administration has not sought our agreement to the use of facilities in this country for National Missile Defence. Nor would we expect any such request from the United States until and unless the next Administration decided to proceed with the deployment of such a system.

  Russia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions held in December 2000 on disposition options for surplus Russian military plutonium; and what role is being played by the G8 in developing a financial strategy to support such assistance to Russia. [145278]
  171W
  Mr. Vaz
  G8 partners are working together to develop a financial strategy to support disposition of surplus Russian military plutonium, through the Plutonium Disposition Planning Group (PDPG).

  The PDPG has been tasked by the G8 with developing an international financial plan for plutonium management and disposition, based on a detailed project plan, and a multilateral framework to co-ordinate this co-operation.

  It held its first meeting in December and will be meeting monthly to examine available project options, together with financing plans for them, and develop a programme which can be presented to Ministers before the Genoa Summit in July.

  Political and Security Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on matters discussed and decisions taken at the EU Political and Security Council Meeting held on 9 and 10 January. [145285]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Union Interim Political and Security Committee met on 9 January and discussed current foreign policy issues and questions relating to the European security and defence policy.

  The Interim Political and Security Committee has no decision-taking powers.

  Land Mine Clearance Programmes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the land mine clearance programmes in which his Department is involved. [145429]

  Mr. Hain
  None. Although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office remains responsible for policy on the implementation of the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their destruction, responsibility for individual land mine clearance programmes rests with the Department for International Development.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the results were of the consultation on the draft International Criminal Court Bill published on 25 August 2000. [146064]

  Mr. Hain
  I have placed in the Library a report on the consultation which summarises the main points raised on the draft International Criminal Court Bill and how the Government are responding to them. The Government are most grateful to those hon. Members and others who gave comments. Valuable suggestions were received and many changes have been made to the Bill as a result.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 11 December 2000,Official Report, column 380,
  172W
  what discussions he has had with the Dutch Foreign Minister on the future of facilities at Zeist for an International Criminal Court. [143961]

  Mr. Battle
  Officials have discussed the future use of Camp Zeist, including use the International Criminal Court, with the Dutch authorities. These discussions are on-going.

  Chinese Christians
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese authorities concerning recent political attacks on Christian churches and the death of a Chinese Christian, Liu Haitao, following his detention. [145854]

  Mr. Battle
  We are concerned at the disturbing reports of the destruction of non-official Catholic and Protestant Churches, and Buddhist and Taoist temples in Wenzhou, China in late 2000 and the death of Liu Haitao. Such activities run contrary to the provisions on religious freedoms contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which China signed in October 1998.

  We regularly press the Chinese authorities to respect these provisions and to permit free religious worship outside the parameters of the official Churches in China. We did so at the latest session of the UK/China human rights dialogue in October 2000. We have raised specific concerns about the destruction of Churches and Temples in Wenzhou, and the case of Liu Haitao. We will address again the whole issue of freedom of religious belief in strong terms during the next round of the high level UK/China human rights dialogue in Beijing between 12–14 February.

  Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [145421]

  Mr. Hain
  I welcome the involvement of both sides in discussions on the basis of the proposals put forward by President Clinton. I hope that the parties will seize the opportunity to bridge the gaps on his proposals. We continue to appeal to both sides to take further steps to halt the violence, action which is essential to build confidence and lay the foundations for further progress in the negotiations. Britain remains closely engaged. At the Prime Minister's request and with the Foreign Secretary's support, Lord Levy visited Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan between 5–9 January, as the Prime Minister's personal envoy. He urged the Israelis and Palestinians to take urgent steps to build confidence and to re-engage in negotiations.

  European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [145776]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government plan to ratify the Charter within the next few months.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent discussions he has had with universities' representatives on the introduction of top-up fees. [145311]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend meets university representatives from time to time in the normal course of business and discusses various issues. The Government's position on "top-up" fees is clear—we are opposed to them and have legislated to prevent universities from levying such charges. Nor are "top-up" fees necessary. The Government have invested £1 7 billion (18 per cent. in real terms) in additional planned resources in higher education over the six years between 1998–99 and 2003–04.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which areas will benefit from the new teacher salary arrangements; and what assessment he has made on the impact on areas near London. [144725]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The new teachers' pay arrangements will be based on recommendations to be made shortly by the independent School Teachers Review Body. It is not therefore possible at this stage to say which areas will be affected. The Secretary of State will consult key stakeholders, including employers and trade unions, before implementing any changes.

  All teachers with the appropriate years of service are able to apply to be assessed for the threshold. For those teachers who are successful it will mean a pay increase of £2,001 and access to a further pay scale of up to £30,000. Teachers taking on additional management responsibility will receive further payment.

  School Health Care
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what requirements there are for schools to provide medical and nursing arrangements for their pupils; what plans he has to increase the requirements; and if he will make a statement. [144954]

  Jacqui Smith
  Maintained schools must by law have an appropriate room for medical aril dental examinations and for caring for sick or injured pupils, but there are no statutory requirements for schools themselves to provide medical and nursing arrangements for pupils. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has a duty to provide for medical and dental inspections and treatment for school pupils. Local education authorities and school governing bodies are required to make arrangements for encouraging and assisting pupils to take advantage of this provision. We have no present plans to change these various requirements, and have published good practice guidance on carrying them out.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to encourage local education authorities to promote awareness of Holocaust Memorial Day in schools. [145409]
  174W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Awareness of Holocaust Memorial Day has been directly promoted in schools through the development of an Education Pack, which was launched on 9 November as part of the build up to the day on 27 January. The Pack has been produced by an Education Working Group of experts from non-government organisations, including the Holocaust Educational Trust who, on behalf of the working group, are making the pack available to all schools. So far, almost 30,000 copies have been distributed to schools, community groups, local authorities and others.

  Information about Holocaust Memorial Day and the Education Pack has been provided in publications which the Department sends to schools and local education authorities, through the HMD website and in the general press. As a result, a number of local education authorities have requested copies of the Education Pack to support local initiatives.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils are eligible for free school meals in each constituency. [144116]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information on pupils eligible for free school meals has been placed today in the House of Commons Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many responses were received from the general public using the feedback forms in the(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 Government annual reports; how many members of staff were responsible for evaluating responses in each of those years; and what action was taken by the Government as a result of these responses. [145372]

  The Prime Minister
  Approximately 90 feedback forms, letters and e-mails were received from the public in response to the 1997–98 Government Annual Report, 99 in response to the 1998–99 Report and 110 so far in response to the 1999–2000 Report. In each case, one member of staff was responsible for collating the responses alongside other duties. The responses have helped to inform the process of developing and implementing policy, along with other forms of consultation.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those elements of QMV agreed at Nice for which the UK has secured an opt-out; and if he will identify the legal case for each opt-out. [144636]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland agreed at the Amsterdam inter-governmental conference and annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the

  175W
  European Community, the UK has an opt-in to all aspects of the free movement articles that moved to QMV at Nice (Articles 65 and 66, and parts of Articles 62 and 63).

  Under the Protocol on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agreed at the Maastricht inter-governmental conference and annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Articles 111(4) and 123(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community which moved to QMV at Nice do not apply to the UK unless we join the single currency.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Home Affairs issues subject to QMV under Article 67 TEC. [144635]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the current Treaty arrangements, Article 67 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC) provides that most measures under Title IV (visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons) shall be adopted by unanimity, but makes exceptions in relation to two aspects of rules on visas for intended stays of no more than three months which are decided by Qualified Majority Voting. Article 67 also provides a mechanism from 1 May 2004 for the Council to decide unanimously, after consulting the European Parliament, to move all or parts of the areas covered by Title IV to the Article 251 co-decision procedure, which includes qualified majority voting in the Council. Finally, Article 67 also provides for two further aspects of the rules on visas for intended stays of no more than three months to be decided under the Article 251 co-decision procedure, including qualified majority voting in the Council, from 1 May 2004.

  The arrangements described will be amended as a result of the agreement reached at Nice. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 9 January 2001, Official Report, columns 510–12W, for a description of the changes in question.

  However, under the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which is annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom does not participate in and is not bound by measures under Title IV TEC unless it exercises its right to opt in.

  Nice Presidency Conclusions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy towards paragraph 20 of Annex I of the Nice Presidency Conclusions; and if the paragraph applies to the UK. [144639]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Paragraph 20 of Annex I on the Nice Presidency Conclusions applies only to member states participating in Economic and Monetary Union. However, as stated in the pre-Budget report, one of the Government's key objectives is
  "to raise Britain's productivity performance and deliver stronger sustained growth in output and employment with low and stable levels of inflation and interest rates".

CABINET OFFICE

  Online Services
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she plans to publish information on the progress towards the Government's target that all services should be online by 2005. [146027]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A report on progress by Departments and their key agencies is being published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House and it will be published on the website www.e-envoy.gov.uk/esd.htm.

  The report contains information supplied by Departments based on all the services they deliver to the citizen and to business as contained in their Public Service Agreements and Service Delivery Agreements.

  Anti-drugs Schemes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will publish the conclusion of studies of the outcomes of anti-drugs schemes in schools, indicating the proportions that resulted in(a) a reduction of drug use, (b) an increase in drug use and (c) no change. [145784]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  There are at present no such studies awaiting publication. The Government have agreed to commission a long-term study on the impact of drug education. This will begin shortly and will be a joint project between the DfEE/DH/HO and UKADCU. The study will help the development of a UK evidence base as part of the UK Anti Drugs Strategy. The study will look at which types of educational input, and factors such as socio/economic cultural and span of education, have most impact on influencing behaviour.

  Royal Household
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the work done in each year from 1992 to 2000 by the Central Office of Information for the Royal Household and its value; when this relationship ended; how the value of that work was transformed into grant-in-aid to the Royal Household; and for what reason. [145192]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Work carried out by the Central Office of Information (COI) for the Royal Household comprises organising media facilities for royal visits, issuing press notices, preparation of press summaries and work on the Royal website. Its value was as follows:

  Year

  1£000

  1991–92

  358

  1992–93

  361

  1993–94

  308

  1994–95

  365

  1995–96

  394

  1996–97

  388

  1997–98

  372

  1998–99

  295

  1999–2000

  172

  1 Excluding VAT

  For the years up to and including 1997–98 work was paid for from the COI vote. In 1998–99 the Royal Household was provided with a grant-in-aid from the

  177W
  COI vote with which to procure information and communication services in order to match operational responsibility and financial control with the aim of achieving best value for money. In respect of 1999–2000 and subsequent years, the COI vote was transferred to the Department for Culture Media and Sport. The Central Office of Information trading fund continues to provide services to the Royal Household on a payment basis.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Environmental Policies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what percentage of waste produced by Lambeth Palace is recycled; whether the energy used by Lambeth Palace is purchased by a supplier committed to using energy produced by renewable means; and what motor vehicles are provided for use by the Archbishop of Canterbury. [145385]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  A policy was initiated some years ago at Lambeth Palace whereby all used white paper, newspapers and bottles are recycled. Garden waste is reused as mulch.

  The Church Commissioners as owners and managers of the property are responsible for the supply of its energy needs. Electricity for Lambeth Palace is supplied by London Electricity.

  One motor car is provided for the Archbishop of Canterbury to enable him to undertake his official duties. The car is five years old and operates on unleaded fuel.

  Wealth Accumulation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what consideration is given during the execution of their duties by the Church Commissioners to the references made in scripture to the accumulation of wealth. [145414]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners' decisions are governed by the duty, laid on them by Parliament and the General Synod, to manage their inherited assets to provide sustainable financial support for the Church of England's ministry, especially in areas of need and opportunity. They are advised on ethical investment issues by the Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory Group whose members include, as do the Commissioners, a number of senior clergy.

  Communion Silver
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the present market value of all communion silver included in the financial statements of the Church Commissioners; and what plans the Church Commissioners have to realise the value of this property. [145416]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Most of the Church of England's communion plate is owned by individual churches and cathedrals, and no central record exists. No specific allowance is made in the Church Commissioners' annual financial statements for the few items of communion plate owned by them for use at See houses.
  178W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what the value was of communion silver(a) bought and (b) sold in each of the last 20 years. [145415]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier answer. There is no central record of transactions involving communion plate owned by the Church of England.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, (1) what was the total cost of(a) stipends, (b) staff, (c) administrative, (d) housing and (e) other costs for each (i) diocesan and (ii) suffragen bishop within the Church of England for each of the last 10 years; [145381]

  (2) what was the expenditure for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available on the home provided by the Church Commissioners to the Bishop of Exeter. [145382]

  (3) what was the annual cost of running and maintaining Lambeth Palace in each of the last 20 years. [145383]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  As stated in my answers on 18 May 1999 and 23 November 1999, the Commissioners' current policy is not to make public expenditure on individual bishops' houses or working costs. Total revenue expenditure by the Commissioners on bishops' stipends, housing and funding their working costs for the years 1990 to 1999 inclusive was:

  £ million

  Year

  Stipends

  Housing

  Working costs

  1990

  2.0

  1.7

  5.3

  1991

  2.4

  2.1

  6.0

  1992

  2.5

  2.2

  6.3

  1993

  2.4

  2.2

  6.7

  1994

  2.6

  2.7

  7.0

  1995

  2.6

  2.3

  7.4

  1996

  2.6

  2.7

  7.6

  1997

  2.7

  2.6

  8.1

  1998

  13.3

  3.0

  8.8

  1999

  13.5

  3.3

  8.5

  1 The totals for expenditure on stipends in 1998 and 1999 include pension contributions payable under the Pensions Measure 1997

  Spending on bishops' houses and working costs is subject to close budgetary control. That on repairs to buildings is limited to the minimum consistent with their proper maintenance, bearing in mind that some are listed buildings. Diocesan boards of finance are responsible for suffragan bishops' houses and the Commissioners do not have figures for that expenditure.

  Spending on working costs is that necessary to support the bishops in their ministry. It consists of the salaries and pensions of their staff, the costs of running their offices, official travel, Church meetings and functions, and other miscellaneous costs. All this expenditure is subject to detailed and continuous audit, to ensure that it is in line with the Inland Revenue's requirement that it is "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" incurred in the performance of a bishop's duties.
  179W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how much was spent in the last year for which figures are available on(a) housing for bishops and (b) Church programmes aimed specifically at the homeless. [145384]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  In 1999 revenue spending on bishops' houses by the Church Commissioners was £3.3 million. Figures for expenditure on suffragan bishops' houses, which are owned by diocesan boards of finance, are not available.

  Church programmes to help the homeless are carried out by a wide variety of agencies, charities and parishes. They are numerous, are often locally based, and respond to local needs. Details of their expenditure are not held centrally.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Cleansing Services Group Explosion
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive full reports from(a) the Environment Agency and (b) the Health and Safety Executive, into the explosion at Cleansing Services Group at Sandhurst, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [143974]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have now received an interim report of the joint investigation being carried out by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive; and reports on both the Agency's and HSE's regulatory actions in relation to the site. Copies of all three reports have been sent to the hon. Member and placed in the Library of the House.

  Fair Rents
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for improvements to the fair rents system. [143975]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The hon. Member is aware of the judgment made in another place which unanimously allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal to quash the Maximum Fair Rent Order.

  The Order provides welcome protection to thousands of fair rent tenants from excessive increases. We have no plans to make further changes to the fair rents system at present.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department has for long-term solutions to the problems of people sleeping rough. [143976]

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department has for long-term solutions to the problems of people sleeping rough. [143980]
  180W
  Ms Armstrong
  I am confident that we will meet the Prime Minister's target of reducing the number of people sleeping rough in England by at least two thirds by 2002. However this is not simply a numbers game and we are determined to ensure that we help rough sleepers rebuild their lives permanently away from the streets. As part of the Spending Review it has been agreed that funding will be available to help us to do this after the life of the Rough Sleepers Unit. I am determined to ensure that vulnerable people sleeping rough receive the help they need.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress with his plans for privatisation of air traffic control. [143977]

  Mr. Mullin
  The proposed public private partnership for NATS is currently progressing to timetable. Stage 3 bidders were announced on 3 November and we expect to put the partnership in place in spring this year.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reform the uniform business rate. [143978]

  Ms Armstrong
  In September we published our Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance". It detailed a number of proposals relating to business rates, including rate relief for small business. The consultation period ended on 8 December. We are now considering the many responses we have received. We will publish our conclusions in a White Paper later this year.

  Regional Housebuilding Targets
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received concerning regional housebuilding targets. [143979]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Reviews of Regional Planning Guidance are at different stages in each region, but representations on housing policies are currently being received in the context of reviews of RPG in the north-west, south-west and south-east regions. Proposed changes to draft RPG will shortly be the subject of consultation in the north-east, east Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside. It would be impractical to try to summarise the range of views expressed in response to current consultations.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the Government's policy on the expansion in the number of mobile phone masts. [143983]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Government policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems while meeting environmental objectives. Our policy guidelines underline the importance of keeping the numbers of telecommunications masts to the minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. Sharing of masts and use of existing buildings and other structures is strongly encouraged.
  181W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement concerning the planning controls on mobile phone masts. [143989]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning controls on telecommunications development are aimed at facilitating the roll-out of a modern telecommunications network while protecting the environment. A consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to these controls ended on 31 October 2000. We are currently analysing responses and shall announce any changes as soon as practicable.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of radioactive waste management. [143984]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's policy is that radioactive wastes should be managed in ways that protect the safety of the public, the work force and the environment, now and in the future. This is a complex issue and the UK Government and the devolved administrations will publish a consultation paper setting out detailed proposals as soon as we are ready. This paper will begin the process that will lead to the implementation of a radioactive waste management policy capable of commanding widespread support across the UK.

  New Forest National Park
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations have been received in support of the proposed boundaries for the New Forest national park. [143985]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Countryside Agency is responsible for designating National Parks, subject to confirmation of a designation order by the Secretary of State. The Agency issued a draft boundary for a New Forest National Park for public consultation last October. The consultation period ends on 19 January and responses have not yet been analysed. I therefore cannot say how many support the proposals.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that passengers are consulted more widely on the development of plans for bus services. [143986]

  Mr. Hill
  We already urge local authorities to consult widely on their local transport plans, each of which must include a clear strategy for bus services. New powers in the Transport Act 2000 will require bus users to be similarly consulted on local schemes.

  Rochford District Council
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the provision of Government aid to Rochford district council. [143987]
  182W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In the current financial year a total of £3.273 million has been provided to Rochford in general grant. In addition, Rochford received a basic credit approval of £945,000 and a disabled facilities grant of £81,000. The Government will also be contributing £14.5 million to Southend-on-Sea borough council's scheme to improve passenger transport and reduce congestion on the A13 and Al27, which will have benefits for Rochford district.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on the introduction of regional Government. [143988]

  Ms Armstrong
  We remain committed to move to directly-elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. While no timetable has yet been drawn up, governance in the regions is already evolving through the work of the chambers, regional development agencies, Government Offices and others.

  Floods (Bellwin Formula)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the operation of the Bellwin formula for flood-related costs. [143990]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Between 13 October 2000 and 8 January 2001 a total of 100 local authorities had notified my Department that they had incurred expenditure for which they would consider making a claim under the Bellwin scheme. Four authorities and seven hon. Members wrote asking for consideration to be given to reducing or abolishing the threshold below which authorities must fund expenditure. Three inquiries asked for special consideration to be given to Combined Fire Authorities. In response to this exceptional level of notifications we established a general scheme applying to incidents in the months of October and November. On 4 November my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced a number of changes in the scheme, including an increase in the Government's contribution from 85 per cent. of spending above local authority thresholds to 100 per cent. and the instigation of a review of the operation of the scheme when the present floods have ended.

  A number of fresh incidents were reported in early December. In view of this we are extending the present scheme to include expenditure in connection with all incidents up to the end of December.

  Disadvantaged Communities
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what policies his Department has developed to address the needs of the most disadvantaged communities. [143991]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government are committed to tackling deprivation and the needs of disadvantaged communities through the Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. Main spending programmes, which are seen as the key for achieving the greatest impact, have been set new targets to improve the outcomes they achieve in
  183W
  disadvantaged areas and have also received substantial increases for the next three years. Targeted programmes, such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, the Single Regeneration Budget and New Deal for Communities, will also play their part. The Action Plan for implementing the Strategy, which was launched yesterday, sets out further proposals for tackling deprivation wherever it occurs, in line with our objective of narrowing the gap between disadvantaged areas and the rest of the country.

  Regeneration (Falmouth and Camborne)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for regeneration programmes within the Falmouth and Camborne constituency. [143992]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are fully committed to working in partnership with communities in Falmouth, Camborne and Redruth to deliver regeneration. We welcome the proposed integrated area Plans, the RDA partnership with local communities in Camborne and Redruth, proposals for increased higher education activity in Cornwall through the Combined Universities in Cornwall project and look forward to supporting other developments under Objective 1, and the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund which is available in Kerrier.

  Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to license houses in multiple occupation. [143993]

  Mr. Mullin
  As we indicated in our Housing Policy Statement, we remain committed to introducing a compulsory licensing system for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  National Rail Inquiry Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to ensure that information provided by the National Rail Inquiry Service on timetables and fares is accurate. [143994]

  Mr. Hill
  The Rail Regulator ensures that the National Rail Enquiry Service (NRES) provides accurate and impartial information through the use of mystery shopper exercises, and has powers to take enforcement action against the operators who fund NRES if obligations are not met.

  Further work is in progress on improving the quality of advice provided by NRES.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what his assessment is of the impact of the bus lane on the M4; and if he will make a statement. [143995]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Research Laboratory's (TRL) report of their independent monitoring of the bus lane during the first year has been received. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. I have accepted the 184W
  Highway Agency's recommendation that in the light of the results, the initial accident data and feedback from the relevant emergency services the scheme should continue. The Highways Agency will carry on monitoring the scheme and the effect on accident patterns.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the cost of regional development agencies in England in the financial year 2000–01. [143996]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The most recent estimate of the total administration costs of the nine regional development agencies in 2000–01 is £76.9 million, to manage an overall budget of £1,149 million.

  Congestion Charging
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met the Road Haulage Association to discuss the introduction of urban congestion charges. [143997]

  Mr. Hill
  Our meetings with the Road Haulage Association (RHA) are frequent and cover a range of issues. Present DETR Ministers have not discussed urban congestion charging with the RHA. However, the RHA responded in writing to our consultation paper "Breaking the Logjam" on the introduction of congestion charges, and their views have contributed to the development of our policies.

  Glass Recycling
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to promote the recycling of glass. [143998]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are setting local authorities in England and Wales new statutory targets which will double recycling of household waste in three years and triple it in five. We have increased statutory requirements in the packaging Regulations on businesses to recover glass packaging. We have also set up the Waste and Resources Action Programme which will foster markets for recyclable materials.

  Aviation Fuel
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to minimise the environmental impact of the use of aviation fuel. [143999]

  Mr. Mullin
  Aviation is a global business and effective action needs international agreement. We are working, in co-operation with our European partners, within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) on a range of measures, including tighter standards, better operating practices, and market-based incentives. We are also supporting research and discussing voluntary measures with UK airlines.

  Heathrow Terminal 5
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the proposed timetable is for his decision on Heathrow terminal 5. [144000]
  185W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The report of the independent Inquiry Inspector, Roy Vandermeer QC, was delivered on 20 December 2000. The decision will be issued as soon as possible after full and careful consideration of the Inspector's report.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to BAA concerning the proposed height of buildings for terminal 5 at Heathrow. [144750]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what impact the proposed terminal 5 at Heathrow will have on air traffic control and the availability of runways. [144748]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow was the subject of a Public Inquiry which closed in March 1999 with the report of the independent Inquiry Inspector, Roy Vandermeer QC, being delivered on 20 December 2000. The report now requires full and careful consideration in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures. Consequently, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the issues raised at this stage because of the possibility of prejudicing, or of appearing to prejudice, a full and proper consideration of that report.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what surveys have been undertaken to assess the turbulence which will be caused by the proposed terminal 5 buildings at Heathrow Airport. [144749]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Such surveys are not a matter for this Department.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what distinction he makes between an environmental impact assessment and an environmental statement in relation to terminal 5. [145852]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The term "Environmental Impact Assessment" describes a procedure that has to be followed for certain types of project before they may be granted development consent. The procedure requires the developer to compile detailed information about the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed project. The information prepared by the developer is presented in a written report to the body responsible for deciding whether to grant development consent. This report is the "Environmental Statement". The term "Environmental Statement" is defined, for the purposes of those Regulations, in regulation 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988.

  The proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow was the subject of a Public Inquiry which closed in March 1999, with the report of the independent Inquiry Inspector, Roy Vandermeer QC, being delivered on 20 December 2000. The report now requires full and careful consideration in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures. Consequently, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the issues raised at this stage because of the possibility of prejudicing, or of appearing to prejudice, a full and proper consideration of that report.

  Roads Investment
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on investment in the road network. [144001]

  Mr. Hill
  The Ten Year Transport Plan published on 20 July last year contained provisions for expenditure on the strategic and local road networks of over £59 billion over the course of the next decade. £4 billion has already been allocated to roads in the December local transport settlement, including £1 billion to fund 39 new major road improvements and a doubling of capital maintenance to £535 million.

  Home Zones
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in implementing home zones. [144002]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Act 2000 makes provisions about Home Zones in England and Wales which will come into effect on 1 February 2001. Local traffic authorities will have a specific power to designate home zones in their area. They will also be able to make orders about the use of the roads and about speed reduction measures in home zones, subject to regulations to be made by the Secretary of State (for England) or the National Assembly (for Wales). We shall consult in due course about the nature and scope of the regulations to be made for England, and about guidance to local authorities.

  Meanwhile, work continues on the nine pilot home zones which the Department began monitoring in 1999. Implementation works are largely scheduled for completion by summer this year.

  Waste Management
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that, in the design and planning of waste incinerators proposed for Guildford, Capel and Redhill, account will be taken of the need(a) to ensure the health and safety of those at risk and (b) to quantify the degree of risk in each case by a properly conducted risk analysis; and if he will publish in full such analyses by dates announced in advance. [143394]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 December 2000]: The risks and effects of new incineration plants are considered under the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, as set out in the "Government Response to the 11th report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities—Waste Incineration".

  In addition, all such new incinerators require a permit from the Environment Agency under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 or Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 before they can operate. As part of the permit application, the Agency would normally require an environmental and health impact assessment that identified and quantified the emissions and exposure pathways. The assessment would

  187W
  be expected to compare the modelled emissions data to nationally and internationally recognised standards set by independent bodies such as the World Health Organisation or the Government's Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards.

  All environmental and health impact assessments are closely scrutinised by the Agency and comments are sought from statutory consultees such as the local health authority. If the permit application demonstrated that there would be unacceptable risks to the environment or to human health as a result of releases, it would not be approved. All permit applications are placed on a public register except for any information determined to be commercially confidential. In addition, for all application decisions under the 1999 Act and for all incinerator

  Company

  Gross proceeds £ million cash

  Number of staff employed

  Scotland Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  10.7

  284

  Scotland Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  27.5

  2,491

  Central Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  2.9

  635

  Western Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  15.0

  2,409

  Eastern Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  11.0

  600

  Eastern Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  29.7

  2,162

  South East Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  20.3

  3,548

  Southern Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  South West Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  11.0

  2,190

  Central Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  18.8

  3,826

  Northern Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  9.0

  3,131

  Northern Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  4.6

  516

  Western Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  8.5

  437

  Total

  169.0

  22,229

  Crematoriums
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the principle of using best available techniques not entailing excessive cost is applied to crematoriums in the UK. [144726]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Statutory guidance on the application of this principle to crematoriums was issued by the Secretary of State in 1991 and revised in 1995. The guidance was published by HMSO. A further review of the guidance is now in progress, in consultation with relevant interest groups. Under section 7(11) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authority regulators are required to have regard to such guidance.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the findings of recent ambient air quality surveys have been concerning the level of airborne mercury particles near crematoriums; and how, and at what level, such pollutants may become a danger to health. [144727]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: My Department has carried out a one year study measuring mercury particle and vapour concentrations near a crematorium site at Sutton Coldfield. That study ended in December 2000. Results so far indicate that annual mean concentrations of mercury particles are likely to be less than 0.1ng/m3 (nano-grams per cubic metre), and often below the limit of detection, while concentrations of mercury vapour are around 3.0ng/m3.
  188W
  decisions under the predecessor regime, the Agency will make publicly available a decision document outlining the basis for its decision.

  Railways
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total sale prices were of the British Rail infrastructure companies at the time of privatisation; and how many staff were employed by them. [143766]

  Mr. Hill
  The table lists the gross proceeds received from sales of each of the British Rail infrastructure companies and the number of staff employed by each company at the end of the last complete British Railways Board 4-weekly reporting period before sale.

  Mercury is a toxic substance. The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory estimate is that, while total national mercury emissions have reduced from 47 tonnes in 1970 to 12.6 tonnes in 1997, crematoriums now account for 11 per cent. of total emissions. It has not been established that there is a level at which there is no toxicological effect.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial assistance is available to(a) private and (b) local authority crematoriums which experience difficulty in financing the purchase and installation of new equipment required by legislation. [144728]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: In line with the polluter pays principle, there is no specific funding to secure compliance with environmental protection legislation. The operators of crematoriums are expected to meet any such costs themselves, such as through the cremation fees they charge.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the number of British crematoriums which do not conform to standards on emission of heavy metals laid down by existing international agreements; [145011]

  (2) if he will list the international agreements concerning the emission of heavy metals to which British crematoriums must conform; [145010]
  189W
  (3) if he will estimate the costs of modifying British crematoriums to ensure that they conform to international obligations concerning the emission of heavy metals. [145012]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: There are no international agreements which specifically require the setting of emission limits for heavy metals from crematoriums or the making of modifications to crematoriums. But without specifying the sources from which emissions reduction must be secured, commitments to reduce heavy metals are or may be included in the hazardous substances strategy of the Oslo and Paris Commission, the Heavy Metals Protocol to the UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, and in the work being undertaken to draw up daughter directives to set limit values for concentrations of various pollutants in ambient air under the EU Air Quality Framework Directive.

  If it is decided domestically to propose heavy metals emission limits in the statutory guidance for crematoriums, we will include cost and benefit information when consulting relevant interests.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to issue new guidelines to British crematoriums in respect of emissions of heavy metals. [145013]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: We are currently undertaking a second periodic review of all the statutory guidance for processes regulated by local authorities under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in consultation with interested organisations. The review of the crematoriums guidance is addressing emissions of heavy metals among other issues. It is intended to issue revised guidance when the review is complete.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the United Kingdom's contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions has been for each of the past three years,(a) by volume and (b) in percentage terms. [145590]

  Mr. Meacher
  We estimate that the UK has contributed the following to global carbon dioxide emissions for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998, which

  Train accidents per billion passenger miles

  Movement accidents per billion passenger miles

  Non-movement accidents per billion passenger journeys

  Year

  Killed

  Major

  Minor

  Killed

  Major

  Minor

  Killed

  Major

  Minor

  1989

  0.24

  1.58

  11.03

  1.01

  3.93

  105.4

  1.25

  82.55

  2,687

  1990

  0

  0.53

  5.88

  1.43

  4.37

  104.1

  1.29

  67.31

  2,294

  1991–92

  0.8

  0.75

  12.01

  1.16

  3.03

  90.65

  0.63

  63.64

  2,091

  1992–93

  0

  0.13

  2.67

  0.68

  3.35

  98.93

  1.29

  100.26

  2,395

  1993–94

  0

  0.22

  5.67

  0.62

  1.8

  95.37

  1.3

  103.05

  2,793

  1994–95

  0.14

  0.5

  8.17

  0.55

  2.65

  98.41

  1.26

  85.28

  2,685

  1995–96

  0.04

  0.04

  2.24

  0.29

  1.91

  102.91

  1.23

  98.65

  2,819

  190W
  represent the latest available data, expressed as million tonnes of carbon:

  MtC

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Global emissions1

  7,856

  7,925

  7,834

  UK emissions

  162.0

  154.8

  155.5

  Percentage UK of global

  2.1

  2.0

  2.0

  1 Includes an estimate of global emissions from land use change of 1,636 MtC per year

  Children's Seatbelts
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the 5 December 2000 meeting with the Motor Trade Liaison Group, with reference to children's seatbelts. [144700]

  Mr. Hill
  The question of testing child restraints in the MOT test was discussed with trade representatives at the 5 December meeting.

  The consensus view of the meeting was that it would be impractical to include child restraints as a formal item of test. It was agreed instead that MOT testers would, in future, give advice to vehicle presenters about the fitment of child restraints whenever they noticed an apparent problem. The Department will also be running a major publicity campaign about child restraints towards the end of January and also during February. This will give 'best practice' advice on both the radio and in the 'Mother and Baby' magazine, and will include the distribution of reminder cards for people to keep.

  Railway Accidents
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the annual average figure was of serious injuries and deaths on the railways per passenger mile travelled in the two decades preceding privatisation; and what has been the annual average figure since privatisation. [144823]

  Mr. Hill
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Death and injury rates for passengers on Britain's railways can be found in the Chief Inspector of Railways' Annual Reports on railway safety, copies of which are held in both Libraries of the House. The tables list these rates, which were first published in the 1994–95 Annual Report and date back to 1989. But due to the various changes in accident reporting arrangements over the years, comprehensive data on serious injury rates have not been available since 1996–97.
  191W

  Train incidents per billion passenger miles

  Movement incidents per billion passenger miles

  Non-movement incidents per billion passenger miles

  Year

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  1996–97

  0.04

  6.67

  0.48

  20.71

  1.79

  1,019.68

  1997–98

  0.24

  6.5

  0.51

  21

  2.24

  1,086.2

  1998–99

  0

  1.31

  0.56

  21.84

  1.6

  1,048.05

  1999–2000

  0.9

  9

  0.43

  17.67

  2.01

  945.28

  Notes:

  1. The introduction of the Reporting of Injuries and Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) in 1996–97 resulted in a change of injury class for members of the pubic including passengers. There is now no distinction between a major and minor injury, the reporting trigger being that the injured person is removed from the site of the accident to hospital immediately.

  2. The rates shown in the tables are for injuries to passengers on all railways in Great Britain broken down into train accidents, movement accidents and non-movement accidents. Train and movement accident rates are related to billions of passenger miles. Non-movement accidents are shown per billion passenger journeys as that figure relates more closely to the use of stations.

  3. Train accidents are—collisions, derailments, trains running into obstructions, fires on board trains and missile damage to drivers cab windows. Movement accidents are injuries caused by the train but not falling in the category of train accidents, e.g. passengers falling out of a train door while the train is travelling between stations. Non-movement accidents do not involve trains, e.g. passengers falling on platforms at stations.

  Left-hand Drive Vehicles
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his most recent estimate is of(a) the percentage of left-hand drive vehicles on British roads and (b) the proportion of road accidents involving left-hand drive vehicles in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [144840]

  Mr. Hill
  The data requested are not available.

  Litter Bins
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 418W, from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what advice he has issued on the security implications of the provision of litter bins at railway stations. [145182]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions provides advice on a range of security measures at Railway Stations, including the provision of litter bins. The current advice is that there should be no litter bins on stations.

  This advice is currently under review. The DETR is working with the Home Office (Police Scientific and Development Branch) and other Government agencies with a view to providing safe and affordable litter bins at stations where this is judged appropriate.

  Road Gritting
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to include in the standard spending allowance an additional dedicated sum for gritting and treatment to roads and paths. [144913]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There is already a 'winter maintenance' element within the existing Highway Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) calculation. Since SSAs are not ring-fenced, Sefton may choose to spend more or less on winter maintenance depending on local decisions on priorities. We have no plans to add any additional element or to ring fence the existing amount.

  North West Development Agency
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many jobs have been created as a result of the activities of the North West Development Agency. [145303]

  Ms Armstrong
  Measuring project outputs from the Land and Property, Single Regeneration Budget, Rural and Inward Investment programmes, the number of jobs created or attracted as a result of the activities of the North West Development Agency since 1 April 1999 is approximately 32,500.

  Wolverhampton Railway Station
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what quantitative evidence he has to show that the benefits of the planned multi-modal interchange at Wolverhampton Railway Station will exceed the costs; and if he will publish his evidence. [144930]

  Mr. Hill
  The Wolverhampton Town Centre Access scheme was proposed as part of the West Midlands Local Transport Plan in July 2000. The scheme was provisionally accepted for funding in the recently announced local transport capital settlement on the basis of the appraisal information provided with the Plan. We have indicated that the appraisal requires some more work. However, it demonstrates that the present value of benefits that can be expressed in monetary terms are of the order of £22 million compared with present value costs of £9 million. There are other benefits that have not been expressed in monetary terms. I have made arrangements for a copy of the appraisal to be placed in Library.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what monitoring his Department undertakes of the levels of depleted uranium in the Irish Sea; [144992]

  (2) what risk assessment he has made of the impact on public health of the firing of depleted uranium munitions into the Irish Sea. [144991]

  Mr. Meacher
  Depleted uranium (DU) munitions are test fired from the MOD range at Kirkcudbright into the Solway Firth. The Defence Evaluation and Research
  193W
  Agency (DERA) undertakes marine environmental sampling in the Solway Firth. The results of this monitoring are made available to the public via the local authority. Between 1981 and 1995, DU munitions were test fired at the Eskmeals range in Cumbria. These firings were conducted solely on land and no munitions were fired into the Irish Sea. There is an ongoing environmental monitoring programme in the Eskmeals area also.

  In December 1993, the MOD commissioned an independent assessment of the impact of firing DU munitions at MOD ranges. The "Environmental Assessment of the Firing of Depleted Uranium Projectiles at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright Ranges", produced by environmental consultants WS Atkins, was published in July 1995. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The report concluded that there was no significant risk to members of the public or the environment from the DU firing programme.

  Road Deaths (Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) road traffic accidents involving fatalities and (b) fatalities as a result of road traffic accidents occurred in Sussex in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [145369]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Number

  Year

  Accidents1

  Fatalities

  1990

  142

  164

  1991

  97

  102

  1992

  90

  93

  1993

  101

  113

  1994

  87

  91

  1995

  76

  86

  1996

  97

  106

  1997

  81

  87

  1998

  94

  102

  1999

  83

  93

  Total

  948

  1,037

  1 Accidents involving at least one fatality

  Railtrack
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask tie Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures are being taken to ensure that Railtrack produces a recovery plan better tailored to the needs of train companies. [145229]

  Mr. Hill
  The Rail Recovery Action Group, chaired by my noble Friend the Minister for Transport, brings together Railtrack, the train operators and other rail industry partners in order to achieve the earliest possible restoration of normal services. Railtrack is working with the passenger and freight train operators to produce individual rail recovery plans by 18 January, a date set by the Rail Regulator. Railtrack has assured the Group that it expects to meet this deadline.

  Car Running Costs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the average cost of car use in(a) rural and (b) inner-city areas. [145778]

  Mr. Hill
  The average expenditure on motoring per car per week for people living in(a) low population density areas was £47.60 averaged over the period 1997–98 to 1999–2000, compared to (b) £51.40 per car for London residents.

  Track Maintenance (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many maintenance staff were employed on track maintenance duty in Scotland(a) by British Rail in the year before privatisation and (b) by Railtrack in September 2000. [145891]

  Mr. Hill
  The British Railways Board's Annual Report and Accounts 1995–96 shows that 15,745 staff were employed by British Rail Infrastructure Services on infrastructure maintenance, track renewal and design duties. No separate figures are available for Scotland.

  No track maintenance staff were directly employed by Railtrack in September 2000. Upon privatisation, the former British Rail Infrastructure Service units transferred to the private sector.

  Australian Rail System
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has carried out into the running of the Australian rail system; and if he will make a statement. [145419]

  Mr. Hill
  We have not carried out any such research and have no plans to do so.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations the shadow Strategic Rail Authority is required to undertake with regional stakeholders before awarding franchises. [143981]

  Mr. Hill
  The Instructions and Guidance given to the Franchising Director (who is Chief Executive of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority) by the Deputy Prime Minister require him to consult, among others, local authorities, regional government, Passenger Transport Executives, the Rail Regulator, regional planning bodies, Regional Development Agencies and Rail Passenger Committees.

  Housing Design
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to promote better housing design to meet the needs of elderly and disabled people. [143982]
  195W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Housing Corporation's Scheme Development Standards already set specific design requirements for grant-aided schemes meeting the needs of elderly and disabled people. We believe the new Housing Quality Indicators will promote further improvement, by encouraging higher standards of space, layout and accessibility in both public and private sector housing.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the Chief Constable of the British Transport police about the swearing in of constables. [145785]

  Mr. Hill
  No discussions have been held between the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable of the British Transport police regarding the swearing in of constables.

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make changes to the rules of rural bus subsidy grant. [146028]

  Mr. Hill
  We have decided in principle that the rules of Rural Bus Subsidy Grant should be changed to give local authorities more flexibility in its use. We propose to allow authorities the freedom to use up to 20 per cent. of the grant on support of existing rural bus services. Authorities will also be able to use the grant to provide ongoing support for services initially supported under the Rural Bus Challenge scheme. These changes will involve amendments to the current rule which prevents use of the grant for services which were already being run as at 1 May 1999.

  We will be consulting the Local Government Association on the details of this change and the monitoring arrangements which will be involved with the intention of new rules being in place for the coming financial year.

  Local Authority Publicity
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity; and if he will make a statement. [146032]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As indicated in our response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill (Cm4529) we intend to review the Code to reflect the changes in councils' constitutions and the referendums and petitions resulting from the Local Government Act 2000.

  We have today, therefore, issued a consultation paper setting out proposed alterations to the Code. These proposals reflect in particular the importance of councils consulting with their local communities, that individual councillors can take decisions, and that referendums, petitions and mayoral elections can take place under the Local Government Act 2000. A copy of this paper has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in the Tooting parliamentary constituency(a) qualified for the Winter Fuel Payment in 2000 and (b) qualified for the Minimum Income Guarantee; and if he will make a statement. [144578]

  Mr. Rooker
  Around 11 million Winter Fuel Payments have already been made this winter and the latest information shows that around 11,300 payments were made in Tooting to those entitled.

  There are around 2 million pensioners, as singles and couples, who benefit from the minimum income guarantee, of whom around 2,700 live in the Tooting parliamentary constituency.

  Notes:

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

  2. Pensioners are define1 as where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  3. Figures for Minimum Income Guarantee are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4. Minimum Income Guarantee cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 1 ONS Postcode Directory.

  5. Constituency information represents constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  Source:
  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2000

  Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy to allow income drawdown from stakeholder pension individual pension funds. [145851]

  Mr. Rooker
  The rules allowing income drawdown will apply to stakeholder schemes in the same way as to other personal pension schemes.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy to allow concurrent contributions to the state second pension and stakeholder pensions. [145862]

  Mr. Rooker
  Yes. As with other private pensions, this will be possible provided the member of the stakeholder pension scheme has not contracted out the State second pension.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retired people's only income is the State Retirement Pension. [144162]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is estimated that approximately 20,000 pensioners (less than 1 per cent.) in Great Britain received no income other than the State Retirement Pension.

  Notes:
  1. Pensioners are defined as single people over State Pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over State Pension age.2. The Retirement Pension category includes basic State Pension, addition pension (from SERPS), graduated retirement benefit, dependant increases and all other components of State Retirement Pension.197W
  3. Estimates are based on survey respondents' identification of different benefits and are subject to misreporting. In particular, some respondents may not have distinguished between the State Retirement Pension and Income Support, since these benefits are paid jointly. Therefore, these estimates should be treated with caution.

  4. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000 or 1 per cent, but are not necessarily accurate to that degree since they are subject to sampling error.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reports from the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate have been published in respect of(a) local councils and (b) other organisations in Scotland. [145638]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) reports on the administration of Social Security benefits by local authorities and seeks to drive up standards of administration.

  To date, we have published nine reports following BFI inspections of Housing and Council Tax Benefit administration in local authorities in Scotland.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on how the pension credit will work for those who receive less than the full basic state pension. [145156]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our proposals for how the Pension Credit will operate are set out in "The Pension Credit: A Consultation Paper" (cm 4900) published on 9 November. The illustrative figures in the Annex to the consultation paper show that the savings element of the Credit will begin to accrue when the original income exceeds £77.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) the number of pensioners failing to take up appropriate benefits and (b) the value of funds set aside for this propose, and surplus to requirements, in each year from 1992 to 2000. [145203]

  Mr. Rooker
  Estimates of take-up for income based benefits are published regularly by the Department, and have been placed in the Library. Estimates of expenditure presented to Parliament are based on trends observed in receipts of benefits and forecasts of likely future trends; there is therefore no funding surplus.

  Pensions Link
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the recent Government Actuary's report on the affordability of restoring the pensions link with average earnings; and if he will make a statement. [145604]

  Mr. Rooker
  We believe that restoring the earnings link is not the best means of tackling pensioner poverty. We are spending more on pensioner incomes than an earnings-linked increase would have cost.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to ensure the Child Support Agency(a) improves its efficiency and (b) speeds up its assessments for maintenance payments; and if he will make a statement. [144889]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Bill O'Brien, dated 16 January 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  Mr Smith is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on his behalf.
  I accept that the Agency's performance is still falling short of the service we want to deliver to our customers. We are striving for continuous improvement and the Secretary of State has set us challenging performance targets for this year.
  Since 1996 we have increased the proportion of non-resident parents who are fully complaint from 32% to 47.6% and in 1999/00 we collected and arranged £730.9m, compared to £400m in 96/97.
  However, I agree that there is still someway to go. In the longer term, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 will lead to radical improvements in the service we offer our clients. Maintenance calculations will be based on a simple percentage of the non-resident parent's net income - 15% for one child; 20% for two and 25% for three or more. The simpler system of rates will make it easier for parents to know how much they are expected to pay, and sorting out child support quickly will enable parents to get on with their lives without the current uncertainty about maintenance.
  The reforms will be introduced for new cases by April 2002 with existing cases transferred at a later date when the system is seen to be working well. However, there is much that we can do in the meantime with the new legislative powers in the Act. This is why we have agreed with Ministers that the new parentage and information gathering provisions and the extension of child support jurisdiction will come into effect from the end of this month. And in April we will bring the driving licence provisions into effect. This will mean that from 31' January 2001, the CSA will be able to presume parentage if it is denied but the non-resident parent was married to the parent with care at any time between the child's conception and birth, or if unmarried he is registered on the birth certificate. The Agency will also be able to presume parentage if he refuses DNA testing or disputes a positive DNA result.
  From 31" January 2001 it will be a criminal offence not to co-operate with the Child Support Agency, carrying a fine of up to £1000. From April 2001, persistent offenders can have their driving licence removed by the courts.
  The Agency is striving to improve its performance and I am committed to continuing these improvements whilst working towards the successful introduction of the child support reforms.
  I hope this is helpful.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data he has collated in respect of the Ealing division of the Metropolitan police service on the numbers of ethnic minority officers and civilian staff in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [145174]
  199W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the numbers of ethnic minority officers and civilian staff in the Ealing division of the Metropolitan police service in each of the past five years has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and are shown in the table. The total figures are generally lower than in the original answer. The other details in the original answer were correct.

  Year

  Ealing division

  Southall division

  Ealing borough

  Police officers from ethnic minority groups1

  1996

  17

  13

  30

  1997

  16

  17

  33

  1998

  17

  18

  35

  1999

  21

  17

  38

  2000

  —

  —

  38

  Civilian staff from ethnic minority groups1

  1996

  30

  25

  55

  1997

  30

  23

  53

  1998

  27

  27

  54

  1999

  27

  29

  56

  2000

  —

  —

  53

  1 As at 31 December apart from the year 2000, which is as at 6 December. Ealing Southall divisions merged on 1 April 2000.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of police strength levels in the Metropolitan police service for the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [144964]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: I understand from the Metropolitan police service (MPS) that the following strength targets have been adopted for the next three years:

  Number

  2001–021, 2

  26,650

  2002–031, 2

  27,644

  2003–041, 2

  28,000

  1 Figures are full-time equivalents. They include secondments to National Crime Squad, National Criminal Intelligence Service and Central Service but exclude secondments to county forces following the boundary change on 1 April 2000.

  2 It is expected that officers seconded to county forces following the 1 April 2000 boundary change will have returned to the MPS by 31 March 2002.

  The MPS plans to reach the strength figures shown, but precise strength may be affected by the budget set for the MPS, by changes to projected wastage and by the success of the MPS's recruitment plans.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were on secondment to other police forces and duties from the Metropolitan police service on(a) 1 April 2000 and (b) 30 September 2000. [145099]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 950 officers were on secondment on 1 April and 981 officers were on secondment on 30 September 2000. It is standard practice for forces to fill most vacancies that arise from officers on secondment. The table sets out the principal categories under which these secondments are recorded.
  200W

  Metropolitan police secondments

  1 April 2000

  30 September 2000

  Boundary—Essex

  32

  31

  Boundary—Hertfordshire

  183

  184

  Boundary—Surrey

  253

  247

  NCIS

  67

  71

  National Crime Squad

  321

  325

  Overseas

  17

  24

  Central Service

  34

  50

  Seconded elsewhere

  14

  14

  On attachment

  29

  35

  Total

  950

  981

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made to ensure that asylum seekers who cannot read English are sent correspondence about vouchers in their own language. [144680]

  Mrs. Roche
  Sodexho Pass UK, the company contracted by the Home Office to print and distribute vouchers to asylum seekers, produces advice leaflets in 11 languages, which include English, Somali, French, Arabic, Albanian, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, Persian, Slovakian and Czech. A leaflet in the relevant language is included in the support packs the National Asylum Support Service sends out to asylum seekers along with their emergency vouchers. In addition, Sodexho Pass UK provides telephone helplines, at local call rates, in the same 11 language. The relevant telephone helpline number is printed on an individual asylum seeker's vouchers according to the language he or she speaks. Asylum seekers who are unable to communicate in one of the specified languages are issued with the English version of the leaflet and helpline number and can use their local One-Stop Service for advice about the voucher scheme.

  The Home Office has grant funding agreements with several refugee organisations. As part of this agreement, refugee organisations provide a One-Stop Service to brief asylum seekers on a range of issues. One of their responsibilities is to brief asylum seekers about the support arrangements, including the voucher scheme, which may include providing briefing in the asylum seeker's own language. They have also issued joint guidance about claiming asylum in the United Kingdom that includes the support arrangements. This is printed in English, Albanian, Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, French, Kurdish (Sorani), Somali and Tamil.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been accommodated in Wales under the Government's dispersal arrangements, indicating the local authority areas concerned. [144956]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information at the end of December 2000 is that 301 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated accommodation in the County of Wrexham in Wales by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
  1 Figure rounded to the nearest 10
  201W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seeker applications were awaiting a final decision on 1 January. [1449051

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision has decreased every month since January 2000. On 30 November the number stood at 69,870, the latest date for which information is available.

  Information on the number of cases awaiting an initial decision on 31 December 2000 is duo to be published on 25 January 2001 on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm as part of the regular publication of asylum statistics.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been dispersed to Liverpool; and how many of them have returned to the South East of England. [145275]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information available at the end of December 2000 is that 1,7801 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated accommodation in Liverpool under the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) dispersal scheme. The number of asylum seekers who may have returned to the South East of England following dispersal to Liverpool is not available.
  1Figure rounded to the nearest 10

  Police Custody Suites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent analysis he has made of the extent to which police custody suites are being used for(a) those who are mentally ill or held for their own protection and (b) the drunk and disorderly. [1446761

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am not aware that there has been any recent analysis of the extent to which police custody suites are being used for such purposes.

  Where mentally ill persons are held at police stations for their own protection they should be interviewed and examined by a social worker and a registered medical practitioner as soon as possible so that suitable arrangements can be made for their treatment or care.

  There are special requirements for custody staff to make more frequent visits to those who are drunk and they must be roused and spoken to on each visit. Some alternatives to police custody for holding drunken persons exist in a few areas and those who are severely inebriated will often be taken straight to hospital.

  Detoxification Centres
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detoxification centres have been established over the last four years for those detained by the police in a drunk and disorderly condition; and how many centres it is proposed to establish in the period until 2005. [144678]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Comprehensive information about the number of detoxification centres and plans for their establishment are not held centrally. However, work is under way to develop best practice in dealing with drunken detainees and to encourage the development of relevant facilities where appropriate.

  Animal Research (Primates)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of non-human primates used in research in the UK in each of the last five years were(a) wild-caught, (b) captive-bred outside the UK and (c) captive-bred in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [145373]

  (2) how many of the project licences granted for the use of non-human primates in each of the last five years were in severity bandings (a) mild, (b) moderate, (c) substantial and (d) unclassified; and if he will make a statement; [145379]

  (3) if he will list those establishments that have been approved as sources of non-human primates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement; [145375]

  (4) what progress has been made in discussions with other member states in establishing a target date after which the use of wild-caught primates in European research laboratories will be prohibited; and if he will make a statement; [145374]

  (5) what percentage of non-human primates used in research in the United Kingdom are singly-housed; and if he will make a statement. [145378]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that non-human primates can be used only if no other species is suitable. In addition to regulatory testing to help ensure the safety of medicines, non-human primates are also used for other important areas of fundamental research. For example, they contribute to programmes of work relating to Parkinson's disease, visual impairment, stroke, diabetes, disorders of reproduction and vaccine development.

  The number of procedures using non-human primate species over the last five years for which figures are available, by source of animals was as follows:

  Animals obtained from:

  Year

  Within the United Kingdom

  Outside the United Kingdom

  Total

  1995

  3,565

  1,156

  4,721

  1996

  3,633

  741

  4,374

  1997

  3,547

  361

  3,908

  1998

  3,260

  395

  3,655

  1999

  3,585

  418

  4,003

  All the animals obtained from within the United Kingdom will have been bred in captivity. For the imported animals, the annual statistics do not distinguish captive-bred animals from those which were obtained from the wild. However, it is unlikely that any wild-caught animals apart from baboons have been acquired from overseas in the last five years. Eighty wild-caught baboons were used in 1995, 28 in 1996, 17 in 1997, four in 1998 and none subsequently.

  Home Office officials advocate the current United Kingdom policy on the use of wild-caught primates with other member states of the European Union at Commission-hosted meetings of the National Competent Authorities.
  203W
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits me from naming the establishments licensed under the Act to supply or breed non-human primates within Great Britain. Animals obtained from overseas are currently imported from Mauritius, Israel, Philippines and China. It is not Home Office policy to name the source companies from within these countries.

  Information on the percentage of primates housed singly is not available. However, housing is generally in pairs or groups unless there are scientific, veterinary or welfare reasons for single housing.

  Information regarding the number of project licences in each severity banding for each of the last five years is not kept in such a way as to make it readily or easily available. I will write to the hon. Member when officials have been able to collate at least some of this information.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the programme for Holocaust memorial day. [144888]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A national ceremony will be held in London on the evening of Saturday 27 January and will be attended by a wide audience including survivors, senior public figures, community representatives and students.

  There is a wide range of activities being planned by local authorities and community groups around the country. They have been encouraged to put details of their activities on the dedicated website www.holocaustmemorialday.gov.uk.

  We also anticipate that schools will use the new Holocaust education resource pack in the week leading up to Holocaust memorial day to mark the day in appropriate ways. We are receiving very positive feedback on its suitability and usefulness for this purpose.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the Armenian genocide up to 1923 will not be included in the Holocaust memorial day programme. [144831]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Holocaust memorial day is focused on learning the lessons of the holocaust and other more recent atrocities that raise similar issues. We took a conscious decision to focus on events around the holocaust and thereafter, although we did examine requests to consider the atrocities and other events that preceded the holocaust. Examples include the crusades, slavery, colonialism, the victims of Stalin and the Boer war. It is always difficult to draw a line and wherever it is drawn it runs the risk of being misinterpreted.

  A particular focus on events around the period 1939–45 and thereafter should not be seen as failing to acknowledge, sympathise and respect the concerns about prior events.

  The massacres of Armenians in 1915–16 were an appalling tragedy condemned by the Government of the day and now. We understand the strength of feeling about this terrible period and extend our sympathies to the descendants of the victims.

  We fully understand that the Armenian community may feel that Holocaust memorial day is an appropriate one for them to recall the dreadful massacres of Armenia.
  204W
  Others will also seek to highlight atrocities. The Government's decision to give a particular focus to the day does not prevent recollection of other appalling events which may raise similar issues. I understand Armenians remember the events of 1915–16 on another date.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the response to Holocaust memorial day by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [144886]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is a wide range of activities being planned by local authorities and community groups around the country. They have been encouraged to put details of their activities on the dedicated website wow.holocaustmemorialday.gov.uk. The Local Government Association (LGA) issued a reminder circular about this on 9 January. The LGA also plan to conduct a survey of local authorities' response to the day next month. This will help to inform planning for future years.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to encourage local authorities to support Holocaust memorial day. [145589]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: On 23 October the Local Government Association sent guidance to local authorities on ways they can mark the day, encouraging them to involve local communities and groups. This guidance was produced by a working group chaired by the Acting Chief Executive of the London borough of Barnet and involved a number of representatives of non-governmental organisations with experience and expertise in holocaust education and remembrance. The guidance has been distributed to a wide range of voluntary and community groups through the Commission for Race Equality, the National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service, Stonewall, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Holocaust Educational Trust, and the Inter Faith Network. This effort was reinforced by seminars for local authority chief officers run jointly by the Local Government Association (LGA) and Beth Shalom Memorial Centre.

  A wide range of activities are being planned by local authorities and community groups around the country. They have been encouraged to put details of their activities on the dedicated website www.holocaustmemorialday.gov.uk. The LGA issued a reminder circular about this on 9 January. The LGA also plan to conduct a survey of local authorities' response to the day next month. This will help to inform planning for future years.

  EU Treaties
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in respect of the amendments to be made by the Treaty of Nice, to Articles 18, 62, 63, 65 and 67 of the Treaty of the European Community, concerning movement of Union citizens within the area of the Community, and matters concerning visas, immigration, asylum, refugees, deportation and related derogations for the United Kingdom and Ireland, contained in the current Community Treaty, he will publish a description of those proposed changes, including the use of Article 251 of the Community Treaty required by the provisional agreement
  205W
  reached at Nice, together with the obligations of the associated Declaration to take further steps in these matters after 1 May 2004. [144742]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 9 January 2001,Official Report, columns 510–12W, for a description of the changes in question. The Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which provides the United Kingdom with an opt-in to measures tinder Title IV of the Treaty, will not be amended as a result of the agreement reached at Nice.

  Draize Test
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ban the Draize test used to determine irritancy of products; and if he will make a statement. [145380]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following the Government's announcement of a ban on the testing of cosmetic products and ingredients, the Draize eye safety test is no longer used for that purpose. However, national and international regulatory bodies requite that non-cosmetic products, ingredients and chemicals are tested to ensure that they are safe (for humans, other animals and the environment) during manufacture, transport and use.

  The Draize test is a safety test required for regulatory risk assessments of chemicals and a range of manufactured products which may be deliberately or accidentally brought into contact with the eyes. An example of this would be preparations used in medical eye drops.

  Some non-animal alternatives to the Draize eye test are available for some screening purposes. However, these can be used only for a limited range of test materials.

  The Home Office has published guidance and minimum severity protocols for this procedure. Such animal testing takes place only when in vitro screening tests have been used to identify, classify and eliminate materials with obvious irritant potential. Careful consideration is given to all available information on a substance to avoid testing of substances likely to produce severe effects on test animals. In this regard the Draize eye test is not carried out on strongly acid or alkaline substances or on substances which have demonstrated severe adverse skin effects in dermal tests or on substances which have demonstrated potential corrosive effects or severe irritancy in the alternative tests currently available.

  This country has taken, and continues to take, a leading role in Europe in encouraging the use of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used and refine the procedures to minimise pain and suffering. To this end the Home Office has funded work conducted by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), but it has been concluded that the currently available alternatives to the Draize test have significant limitations and cannot replace live animal use at this stage.

  Intoxicating Substances
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to forbid the sale to juveniles of(a) glues, (b) spray paints and (c) knives. [144751]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is an offence under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 to supply a substance to someone under the age of 18 knowing or believing that the substance, or its fumes, is likely to be inhaled for the purposes of intoxication. Under the 1996 Offensive Weapons Act, it is an offence to sell a knife to a person under the age of 16 years.

  There are no plans at present to restrict the sale of spray paints to juveniles; this would penalise young people who have a legitimate reason for their purchase. The police have the power to arrest anyone whom they reasonably suspect has committed or is about to commit an offence of criminal damage such as graffiti spraying.

  Lord Birt
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the conclusions of work undertaken by Lord Birt in his role as an adviser to his Department; and what recommendations Lord Birt has made to the Government in that capacity. [145455]

  Mr. Straw
  Lord Birt is looking at criminality and long-term trends. His work is being considered alongside work which is currently being undertaken by the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Law Officers' Department and Her Majesty's Treasury about which I informed the House on 7 November 2000,Official Report, column 203W. This work is drawing together experience of improving the performance of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales over the last three-and-a-half years to identify the way forward for the longer term. It will take account of current reviews such as Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts and a review of the present sentencing framework led by John Halliday, formerly Director of Criminal Justice Policy at the Home Office. Any firm conclusions which emerge from this work will be reported to the House.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports of(a) fraud and (b) money laundering were received for each of the last five years for which figures are available by the National Criminal Intelligence Service. [145865]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Economic Crime Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) is responsible for the receipt, analysis and dissemination of all reports made in the United Kingdom which may be indicative of suspicious transaction of money laundering.

  The numbers of such reports received for each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  13,710

  1996

  16,125

  1997

  14,148

  1998

  14,129

  1999

  14,500

  207W
  Reports are passed by NCIS to the appropriate body to investigate; this is usually the Financial Investigation Unit of the particular police force concerned.

  NCIS do not routinely receive reports of fraud and no reliable central records are maintained of allegations of fraud.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated level of use is of(a) cannabis, (b) heroin and (c) cocaine in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [145783]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no single and definitive measure of drug use. However, self-reported levels of use among a representative sample of people aged 16 to 59 and living in households in England and Wales are available from the British Crime Survey (BCS). Information on the levels of use from the BCS is given in the table. The full reports are available from the Library and on the Home Office website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pubsintrol.html.

  Percentages of respondents reporting use of cannabis, cocaine and heroin, 16 to 59-year-olds in England and Wales

  Cannabis

  Cocaine

  Heroin

  1994

  Ever

  21

  2

  1

  Last year

  8

  1—

  1—

  Last month

  5

  1—

  1—

  1996

  Ever

  22

  3

  1

  Last year

  9

  1

  1—

  Last month

  5

  1—

  1—

  1998

  Ever

  25

  3

  1

  Last year

  9

  1

  1—

  Last month

  5

  1—

  1—

  1 Less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  British Crime Survey 1994, 1996, 1998 (Drug Misuse Declared in 1998: results from the BCS, Home Office Research Study 197)

  Devolution (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive about the extent to which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 should apply to Scotland. [145896]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Subject to a number of limited exceptions the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 applies throughout the United Kingdom. As to Scotland, the exceptions relate to the Electoral Commission's functions in respect of local government boundaries and local government elections, which are devolved matters. However, section 10 (Giving advice and assistance), section 13 (Education about electoral and democratic systems), and section 145 (General function of Commission with respect to monitoring compliance with controls imposed by the Act etc.) confer powers on Scottish Ministers to extend the functions of the Commission under those sections to cover local government elections in Scotland. Section 19 of the 208W
  Act also confers a power on Scottish Ministers to transfer to the Electoral Commission the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland.

  In addition, a number of the amendments made by Part VIII of the 2000 Act to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 do not extend to local government elections in Scotland. But the Scottish Parliament and Executive agreed to the amendments to sections 75 and 93 of the 1983 Act (by sections 131 and 144 of the 2000 Act respectively) extending to such elections.

  The decisions which the Act leaves to Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament are matters entirely for them.

  Referendums
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to public funds was of material issued by Her Majesty's Government during the referendum campaigns in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) London. [145895]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 23 March 2000,Official Report, columns 666–67W.

  Police Costs (Fuel Crisis)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments are available to police authorities in respect of extra costs incurred during the fuel crisis in 2000; and how much money has been spent in respect of each police force. [145786]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Payments will be made to police authorities in respect of the additional operational costs incurred by forces in responding to the fuel embargo protests in September and November 2000.

  Forces have been asked to submit their final claims for the additional costs incurred during the fuel dispute by the end of January to allow for assessment and payment in the current financial year.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the powers special constables have in police authority areas other than their own; and what plans he has to revise the statutes governing those powers. [145855]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The powers of a special constable in a police authority area other than their own are set out in the Police Act 1996 at Part 1, Section 30(2), (3) and (4). The Act states that:

  (2) A special constable shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable in the police area for which he is appointed and, where the boundary of that area includes the coast, in the adjacent United Kingdom waters.

  (3) Without prejudice to subsection (2), a special constable appointed for a police area shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable:

  (a) in the case of a special constable appointed for a police area other than the City of London police area, in any other police area which is contiguous to his own police area; and

  209W

  (b) in the case of a special constable appointed for the City of London police area, in the Metropolitan police district and in any police area which is contiguous to that district.

  (4) A special constable who is for the time being required by virtue of section 23 or 24 of the Police Act 1996 to serve with another police force shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable in any area in which special constables appointed for the area for which that force is maintained have those powers and privileges under this section.

  There are no current plans to revise the Police Act 1996.

  Police Numbers (Lancashire)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the police officer strengths were for Lancashire on(a) 31 March 1997, (b) 30 September 1997, (c) 31 March 1998, (d) 30 September 1998, (e) 31 March 1999, (f) 30 September 1999, (g) 31 March 2000 and (h) 30 September 2000; and how many officers were on (i) sick leave and (ii) light duties on these dates. [145025]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police numbers is set out in the table. Information on the number of officers on sick leave for the same periods have been provided by the Chief Constable who has also informed me that she is unable to provide information on the number of officers on light duties as it is not centrally recorded on force records.

  Year/month

  Police numbers

  Number of officers on sick leave

  31 March 1997

  3,248

  106

  30 September 1997

  3,281

  169

  31 March 1998

  3,257

  175

  30 September 1998

  3,245

  126

  31 March 1999

  3,245

  173

  30 September 1999

  3,221

  164

  31 March 2000

  3,179

  178

  30 September 2000

  3,215

  174

  Firearms
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded offences involving(a) handguns and (b) shotguns and (c) rifles have been committed in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. [145726]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested details are given in the table.

  Number of offences involving:

  Year

  Handguns

  Shotguns and rifles

  1990

  2,537

  1,287

  1991

  3,430

  1,685

  1992

  4,023

  1,581

  1993

  4,273

  1,659

  1994

  3,087

  1,253

  1995

  3,318

  993

  1996

  3,347

  936

  1997

  2,648

  631

  1998–991

  2,687

  685

  1999–20001

  3,685

  760

  1 Years ending March, using the new counting rules for recorded crime. Figures before and after 1 April 1998 cannot be directly compared.

  Police (Avon and Somerset)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the chief constable of Avon and Somerset police regarding the current level of recruitment to the force; how many recruits have been taken on by the force since May 1997; and how many officers have left the force since May 1997. [142862]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have received no representations from the chief constable of Avon and Somerset constabulary regarding the current level or recruitment to the force.

  Information about police recruitment and wastage is collected six monthly for the periods April to September and October to March each year.

  The number of recruits taken on by Avon and Somerset constabulary 1 April 1997 and 30 September 2000 was 473.

  The number of officers who left the force between 1 April 1997 and 30 September 2000 was also 473.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish, for each police authority broken down in the age year ranges(a) up to 35, (b) 36 to 50 and (c) 51 years and over, the level of recruitment and wastage in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990 and (iii) the most recent 12 months for which statistics are available; [143888]

  (2) if he will publish, for each police authority, the age profile of each police force in the age ranges (a) up to 35, (b) 36 to 50 and (c) 51 years and over in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990 and (iii) the most recent 12 months for which statistics are available. [143887]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available. The Home Office publishes data on overall police numbers, and a revised assessment of these at 30 September 2000 is due to be published on 16 January, along with recruitment and wastage figures. Individual police authorities and forces are likely to consider age profiles of officers, for example in their own recruitment plans.

  Information on officer age by rank was collected by the Home Office until 1989, and was included in Appendix 12 of the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for the years up to 1989. Copies of these reports are in the Library.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his assessment is of the annual cost to police forces of charges levied by telecommunications companies for tracking telephone calls and e-mail correspondence; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which the payment of such charges is cost effective; [145181]

  (2) what discussions he has had with telecommunications companies over the variation in charges made for tracking telephone calls and e-mail correspondence; [145185]
  211W
  (3) what representations he has received about the level of charges made by telecommunications companies for tracking telephone calls and e-mail correspondence for law enforcement agencies; [145184]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect on policing in Gloucestershire of the cost to the constabulary of charges levied by telecommunications companies for tracking telephone calls and e-mail correspondence; and if he will make a statement. [145180]

  Mr. Straw
  Information on the charges mentioned is not collected centrally. Agreements are in place between communication service providers (CSPs) and law enforcement agencies which take account of the fact that a requirement to provide communication data places operational and financial burdens on the CSPs.

  The Government have received representations from one hon. Member about charges made to the police by CSPs for supplying data.

  Criminal Assets
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value was of assets confiscated from convicted criminals in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [145243]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The receipts realised from confiscation orders in England and Wales were £13,002,000 in 1997–98 and £16,510,000 in 1998–99. Provisional figures for 1999–2000 indicate that £25,044,000 has been recovered from convicted criminals in respect of the proceeds of their crimes.

  Persons convicted for selling food not complying with safety requirements contrary to section 8 of the Food Safety Act 1990, by sentence, England and Wales

  Length of sentence

  Year

  Number convicted

  Absolute or conditional discharge

  Fine

  Community Service Order

  Fully suspended sentence

  Number sentenced to immediate custody

  3 months

  4 months

  Otherwise dealt with

  1992

  157

  16

  141

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  169

  28

  140

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1994

  117

  13

  104

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  96

  12

  80

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  98

  3

  94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1997

  76

  3

  72

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  80

  10

  68

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1999

  140

  —

  37

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 One offender was not sentenced in 1999 but was held over for sentence in 2000

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of drink driving were reported by police in Merseyside from 20 December 2000 to 2 January 2001. [144915]

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

  However, information collected and published by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (ACPO) shows that 509 breath tests were given following collisions attended by the police in Merseyside during the period 18 December 2000 to 2 January 2001, of which 15 were positive.
  212W
  These figures are very encouraging and a clear indication of the resolve of the courts to deprive criminals of the financial benefits of their offending.

  Unfit Meat
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) convicted of selling unfit meat to the public and (b) sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four and (v) five years and over, in each year since 1990. [145002]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Section 8 of the Food Safety Act 1990 refers to the sale of food not complying with food safety requirements. This includes selling food that is unfit for human consumption.

  However the data held centrally on the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database, which only identify offences under S8 of the Act from 1992, do not distinguish the particular offence of selling food that is unfit for human consumption from the other offences given under this section of the Act. There may also be prosecutions under the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995, but we are again unable to identify specific offences.

  The table shows the number of persons convicted under S8 of the Food Safety Act 1990. The type of sentence and the numbers of persons sentenced to a term of imprisonment, broken down by length of sentence, is also given. Only two offenders were sentenced to imprisonment, one for three months and one for four months.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a consultation on regulations for the commercial use of the electoral register will be conducted by his Department. [145607]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2 May 2000, Official Report, column 78W. We are currently considering the representations already received. The draft regulations will be ready by Easter and will be made available on the Home Office website for comment.

  Police Funding (Floods)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments(a) are available and (b) have been made to police authorities in respect of demands on the police during the floods in 2000. [145559]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: There are no specific payments available from the Home Office to police authorities in respect of demands on the police during the floods in 2000 and no payments have been made.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions administers the Bellwin scheme that provides assistance to meet an undue financial burden of the immediate costs of tackling exceptional natural disasters or similar events. I am informed by that Department that no applications have been received, and no payments have been made, to police authorities for costs incurred from the floods.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the(a) capacity of each police training centre in respect of new recruits, (b) the number of new recruits entering training in each month from and including April 2000 and (c) the estimated future monthly (i) training capacity and (ii) number of recruits at each centre [145555]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Each of the five main National Police Training (NPT) Probationer Training Centres (NPT Ashford, NPT Bruche, NPT Cwmbran, NPT Durham, NPT Ryton) receives an intake of probationers every five weeks for their 15 week, residential, Stage 2 phase of probationer training. Each Probationer Training Centre will therefore have three intakes on-site at any one time. The five main Probationer Training Centres each has a maximum intake capacity for each course, namely:

  Number

  Ashford

  144

  Bruche

  112

  Cwmbran

  72

  Durham

  54

  Ryton

  108

  With the assistance of up to seven satellite centres (Bramhill, Harrogate, Padgate, Wethersfield, Heythrop, Hutton Hall, Tally Ho) the total NPT intake capacity for the last 10 courses has been:

  Start date

  Intake capacity

  14 February

  526

  20 March

  508

  25 April

  508

  30 May

  544

  3 July

  526

  7 August

  562

  11 September

  634

  16 October

  624

  20 November

  639

  8 January

  714

  (b) Intakes to foundation training operate on a five-weekly cycle, not a monthly cycle. Metropolitan police intake dates to the training school at Hendon are slightly different from those for
  214W
  National Police Training's Police Training Centres. The number of recruits starting training with NPT and at Hendon on each intake since April 2000 was as follows:

  Provincial forces1

  Number

  Metropolitan police

  Number

  Total

  25 April

  466

  17 April

  97

  563

  30 May

  474

  22 May

  99

  573

  3 July

  521

  26 June

  96

  617

  7 August

  517

  31 July

  85

  602

  11 September

  590

  4 September

  96

  686

  16 October

  609

  9 October

  122

  731

  20 November

  637

  14 November

  131

  768

  8 January

  697

  18 December

  137

  834

  1 Includes officers from Channel Islands, Isle of Man, British Transport Police and Royal Parks Constabulary

  (c)(i) The Metropolitan Police Service will make the capacity available at Hendon to match the planned number of recruits for each future intake.
  National Police Training plans to provide about 640 places per training intake during 2001–02. The distribution of these places between NPT centres is expected to change in the course of the year as development proceeds at some sites and the need for leased satellite premises is reviewed.
  The number of places provided can be increased if demand exceeds forecasts, provided forces are able to identify and second suitable staff to act as trainers.
  (c)(ii) On each of the two remaining training intakes in 2000–01 (in January and March 2001), the Metropolitan police plan to recruit 200 officers. In 2001–02 the Metropolitan police plans to recruit 247 officers for each of the 10 intakes to the training centre.

  The total intake of recruits to NPT centres for each of the remaining two intakes in 2000–01 (in February and March 2001) is expected to be 642, utilising all the available capacity. In 2001–02, it is estimated that there will be an average of about 635 recruits per intake to NPT.

  Licensing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his plans for licensing liberalisation will include conditions of fire exits, safe capacities and noise restrictions for licensed venues. [145443]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We envisage that licences for premises selling alcohol or providing public entertainment or late night refreshment should include such conditions as the licensing authority consider necessary, in the light of the views of the police, fire authority and local residents, to ensure public safety and to reduce the risks of crime, disorder and public disturbance.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the Cranfield University study, 'Licensing Law Liberalisation: The Scottish Experience', on the link between licensing liberalisation and binge drinking and alcohol-related violence. [145442]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We share the view of the Scottish Executive that the report of the study should be approached with a considerable degree of caution, and that it does not support the conclusion that changes to licensing law in Scotland made in 1976 have caused more violence or binge drinking. The report is in any event of limited relevance to our proposals for reforming the licensing laws in England and Wales, which do not involve reproducing the Scottish arrangements.

  Public Interest Immunity Orders
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public interest immunity orders have been issued in the case of Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh. [145566]

  Mr. Straw
  I have signed one public interest immunity certificate in relation to the appeal proceedings in the case of Rv. Samar Alami and Jawad Botmeh. My predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), signed two certificates in relation to the trial proceedings in that case.

  Religious Discrimination
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to receive a report on religious discrimination from the University of Derby; and if he will make a statement. [145328]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: We received a draft report of the findings of the Derby empirical research into religious discrimination last month. All research commissioned by the Home Office is subject to external peer review before publication and this is in hand.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with OFTEL concerning further opening up of the domestic telecommunications market. [1457521

  Dr. Howells
  My colleagues and I meet with the Director General of Telecommunications from time to time to discuss ways of strengthening competition in the telecommunications market and promoting the interests of consumers.

  Petrol Retail Staff
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff full-time equivalents were employed in the independent petrol retail industry in England and Wales in each of the last five years. [145342]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This information is not available.

  Financial Management Companies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish a White Paper on the regulation of financial management companies which advise the public on restructuring borrowing. [144483]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no plans to issue a White Paper on this matter.

  The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty under the Consumer Credit Act to review and advise my right
  216W
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about developments in the UK credit market. If he makes any recommendations I will study them carefully.

  Weights and Measures
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what timescale he envisages for the review of the NPL/SERCO business plan for management of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory in Teddington; and what his plans are for consulting NWML's clients, customers and partners before a decision is made. [145405]

  Dr. Howells
  I envisage that the review should be completed over the next few weeks. There has been and will continue to be extensive consultation with NWML's clients, customers and partners.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the conclusions were of the most recent review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory as regards the appropriate role of(a) Government and (b) private contractors in the provision of trading standards and consumer protection work by the NWML. [145404]

  Dr. Howells
  The review is not yet complete and no conclusions have been reached.

  Abbey National/Lloyds TSB Takeover
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take to protect the interests of consumers in respect of the hostile takeover of Abbey National by Lloyds TSB. [144971]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the Director of Fair Trading to assess the likely impact of a proposed merger. He is currently investigating the possible take-over of Abbey National by Lloyds TSB and will advise me in due course on whether or not he believes the proposed merger may be expected to operate against the public interest. When I have received the DGFT's advice, I will consider all issues that I believe to be relevant before deciding whether or not to refer the proposed merger to the Competition Commission for a detailed inquiry.

  Mobile Telecommunications Safety
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial allocation has been made by his Department for research into the safety of mobile phones and telecommunication masts. [144674]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has allocated £1.8 million of the Government funding towards the recently announced LINK research programme in mobile communications and health.

  Petrol Stations (Closures)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about how many petrol stations in Scottish rural areas closed in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [145908]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department does not hold information about the number of petrol stations in Scottish rural areas. The Institute of Petroleum's UK Retail
  217W
  Marketing Survey (last published in March 2000) shows that the total number of petrol retail outlets in Scotland in 1997, 1998 and 1999 was as follows:

  Calendar year

  Petrol retail outlets

  1997

  1,299

  1998

  1,201

  1999

  1,308

  Haulage Companies
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Scottish-based haulage companies have been declared bankrupt in each year since 1997. [145906]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table shows company liquidations for the transport and communication industry in Scotland from 1997 to quarter 3 of 2000.

  The transport and communication industry includes road transport, air transport, shipping, travel agents and other transport and communication—detailed figures solely for road haulage (which is only one category within road transport) are not available.

  Transport and communication (Scotland)

  Year

  Company liquidations

  1997

  20

  1998

  24

  1999

  16

  2000 (to quarter 3)

  13

  Source:

  DTI

  Company Closures
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms in the United Kingdom have ceased trading since May 1997. [145728]

  Dr. Howells
  No figures are available from Companies House for the number of firms that have ceased trading over the period in question. However, their records confirm that 58,384 limited companies went into liquidation over the period from May 1997 to December 2000. Of these, 9,838 were voluntary members liquidations, 31,649 were voluntary creditors liquidations and 16,897 were compulsory liquidations. Almost 400,000 companies were dissolved over the same period, but many of these may never have traded.

  Small and Medium Companies
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to update the limits set under section 247 and section 249(3) of the Companies Act 1985 relating to small and medium companies and groups. [145444]

  Dr. Howells
  In his response to a Parliamentary Question on 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 405W, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he had also decided that the current thresholds in the Companies Act which define small and medium companies for accounting purposes should be changed to the maxima allowed under EU law. However,
  218W
  this change will be made as part of the implementation of wide-ranging proposals on small companies which we expect to emerge from the Company Law Review.

  The thresholds for groups will be considered as part of this process.

  The independent review of Company Law is expected to publish its final recommendations in May this year. The Government will then set out their response and proposed way forward in the light of the Review's recommendations.

  Fire Resistant Materials
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he takes to ensure that material sold as fire resistant meets the appropriate standards. [144741]

  Dr. Howells
  Legislation governing the fire performance of consumer goods is vigorously enforced by local authority trading standards officers who test goods using the appropriate standards. Also my Department commissions research to monitor the fire performance of goods. I also closely monitor fire statistics that, for example, show that the stringent fire performance standards specified in the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988 have resulted in a considerable reduction in deaths in fires started in upholstered seating. These regulations are over 12 years old and so I am minded to undertake a review. I am currently discussing such a review with my officials and I will announce my decision shortly.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the period of time for which spent nuclear fuel from the Kalkar SNR 300 is permitted to be stored at the UKAEA's Dounreay site; when he expects the plutonium fuel to be moved from Dounreay; and what its final destination will be. [145282]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Kalkar SNR 300 fuel is permitted to be stored at Dounreay until 31 December 2001. It is expected that the fuel will be removed by this date and returned to its German owners, Restabwicklung SNR 300 GmbH. UKAEA expect to return the fuel to Hanau in germany. The final destination of the fuel is a matter for its owners, but nay export of the fuel from the UK will be permitted only once its final destination and use has been notified.

  Nuclear Security
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the review of security at nuclear plants. [145280]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Security procedures at civil nuclear sites are kept constantly under review and updated in the light of changing circumstances to ensure their continuing effectiveness. The Director of Civil Nuclear Security, the Government's Regulator, is confident that existing procedures are adequate and effective.

  Manufacturing (Job Losses)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) status and (b) composition is of

  219W
  the ministerial group on manufacturing job losses referred to by the Leader of the House on 21 December 2000, Official Report, column 574. 1145777]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There is no formal ministerial group as described by the hon. Member on 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 574. However in addition to work undertaken by certain Committees, different groups of Ministers do meet from time to time to discuss industrial issues, including job losses. The status of such groups is informal and membership varies according to the issue under discussion. I am advised that my right hon. Friend was referring to the ongoing activity of such informal meetings and groups.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court of Protection
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her plans for the reform of the Court of Protection. [145736]

  Jane Kennedy
  Plans for the reform of the Court of Protection are set out in the Government's Policy Statement "Making Decisions", issued in October 1999. The Policy Statement sets out the Government's proposals to reform the law in order to improve and clarify the decision-making process for those who are unable to make decisions for themselves. This includes establishing a new single court jurisdiction which will deal with all areas of decision-making for adults without capacity. The new jurisdiction will be based at the Court of Protection. The establishment of the new Court will require legislative change.

  Family Law Act
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will publish the final evaluation report of research into pilot information meetings under Part II of the Family Law Act 1996; and what plans the Government have to implement Part II of the Act. [146031]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Final Evaluation Report has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Library. The Lord Chancellor and I are grateful for Professor Walker and her team at Newcastle University for the very detailed and informative report they have produced.

  On 17 June 1999, Official Report, column 213W, the Government announced that they would await the Final Evaluation Report before deciding the way forward on Part II.

  The research has concluded that none of the six models of information meeting tested over a two-year period is good enough for the implementation of Part II on a nation-wide basis. It has shown that, for most people, the meetings came too late to save marriages and tended to incline those who were uncertain about their marriages towards divorce. While people valued the provision of information, the meetings were too inflexible, providing general information about both marriage saving and the divorce process. People wanted information tailored to
  220W
  their individual circumstances and needs. In addition, in the great majority of cases, only the person petitioning for divorce attended the meeting, but marriage counselling, conciliatory divorce and mediation depend for success on the willing involvement of both parties.

  The Report has suggested testing a further model designed to address the majority of the shortcomings identified in the pilots. However, this new kind of meeting would not solve the underlying problems associated with compulsory information meetings, in particular the timing of the meetings in the divorce process and their inability to engage both parties.

  Furthermore, in the Government's view the problems with Part II are not limited to the provisions on information meetings. The new procedures would be complex and likely to lead to significant delay and uncertainty which would not be in the best interests of the couple or their children. There are concerns that the provisions would prove unworkable in practice.

  The Government therefore do not believe Part II would fulfil the principles of Part I of the Act, to which they remain committed. These principles include saving saveable marriages and, where marriages break down, bringing them to an end with the minimum distress to the parties and children affected.

  The Government are not satisfied that it would be right to proceed with the implementation of Part II and propose to invite Parliament to repeal the relevant sections of the Family Law Act 1996 once a suitable legislative opportunity occurs. This decision does not affect section 22, in Part II, relating to the funding of marriage support services, which is in force and will remain so. In addition, while it is not possible to implement separately the provisions at sections 9(3) and (4) of Part II, the Government are sympathetic to the needs of Jewish women who are denied a religious divorce, and is considering the best way forward.

  The Government will draw on the Evaluation Report and build on the initiatives already under way in their efforts to support marriage and stable relationships and to reduce the damaging impact of family conflict and relationship breakdown on children. They have taken forward a wide range of measures over the past three years to help families, including establishing the new Children's Fund and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, improving maternity and parental leave arrangements, and increasing funding for marriage and relationship support to a total of £5 million per annum by 2002–03.

  Marriage and Relationship Support
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what grants her Department has made towards marriage and relationship support in the current financial year. [146029]

  Jane Kennedy
  During the current financial year (2000–01), the Lord Chancellor's Department will spend £4 million on marriage and relationship support, an increase of £0.8 million on funding for the financial year 1999–2000.
  221W
  The funding has been allocated as follows: Relate—£2,396,585; Tavistock Marital Studies Institute—£486,161; Marriage Care—£333,516; One plus One—£357.,000; Jewish Marriage Council—£48,313; Family Welfare Association—£99,925; London Marriage Guidance—£100,000.00; Parent) in e Plus—£60,000; National Marriage Week—£30,000; Community Family Projects—£30,000; 2as 1.net—£40,000; and Asian Family Counselling Service—£18,500.

  The funding will be spent on improving existing marriage and relationship support services, research into the most effective interventions, and disseminating good practice.

  We are increasing the amount of money available to £4.5 million from the next financial year (2001–02).

  Civil Justice Reform
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action his Department is taking in respect of the recommendations in the final report of the Civil Justice Reform Group in Northern Ireland. [146030]

  Mr. Lock
  The Final Report of the Civil Justice Reform Group was published on 16 June with a consultation period until the end of September. The Lord Chancellor's original purpose in establishing the Group was to ensure a reform programme tailored to Northern Ireland's needs and informed by those with practical experience of the system.

  The Lord Chancellor and I are very grateful to Lord Justice Campbell, who chaired the Group, and to the other members for their work. We are also grateful to those who responded during the consultation period. Broadly, the Lord Chancellor and I accept the Report's main direction and its principal recommendations. There are notable departures from arrangements in England and Wales but the Government are satisfied they are appropriate in the Northern Ireland context.

  There are a few technical recommendations in relation to expert evidence on which the Lord Chancellor and I do not share the views expressed in the Report. These will require further consideration and of course there are other points of detail to be looked at closely during the implementation process, but overall the Government are of the view that the Report's recommendations represent a major step forward in the reform of the civil justice
  222W
  system in Northern Ireland to make it as accessible, economic and efficient as possible. Implementation will begin as soon as possible with an increase in the small claims jurisdiction early this year followed by an approximately two year rolling programme of subordinate legislation and operational changes.

  Magistrates Courts (Liverpool)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much will be spent on new magistrates courts in Liverpool in the next two financial years. [1452221

  Mr. Lock
  The provision of a new magistrates court in Liverpool forms part of a proposed Private Finance Initiative project to provide serviced accommodation for the Merseyside magistrates courts committee. Expenditure in the next two financial years will be limited to advisers' fees and is not expected to exceed £800,000.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost was of Liverpool magistrates court in each year from 1992 to 2000. [145241]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department provides separate grants for revenue and capital (buildings and IT) to local authorities for magistrates courts costs. Grant is paid at 80 per cent. of expenditure/costs of scheme or item, with the remaining 20 per cent. met by local authorities.

  The total cost (revenue and capital grant) of Liverpool magistrates courts committee by financial year is:

  £ million

  1991–92

  3.0

  1992–93

  4.3

  1993–94

  4.3

  1994–95

  4.6

  1995–96

  4.2

  1996–97

  4.2

  1997–98

  4.2

  1998–99

  4.7

  1999–2000

  110.6

  2000–01

  1, 2 10.6

  1 Liverpool magistrates courts committee was amalgamated with four other local committees to form Merseyside magistrates courts committee in April 1999. Information about Liverpool magistrates court is not now collected. The cost figures quoted for Liverpool since 1999–2000 therefore represent all the courts in Merseyside.

  2 The 2000–01 figure is an estimate, as revenue grant costs will not be certain until the end of this financial year.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Baroness Boothroyd
The Right Honourable Betty Boothroyd, having been created Baroness Boothroyd, of Sandwell in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Castle of Blackburn and the Lord Healey.

Care Homes
2.43 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they plan to publish regulations on the standards to be observed in care homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we will be consulting on regulations for care homes under the Care Standards Act 2000 shortly. Following earlier consultation, we also intend to publish soon the finalised standards for older people. The standards for care homes for adults will be published for consultation at the same time as the regulations.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Government have given ground relentlessly since the White Paper, Fit fin. the Future, was published in December 1999. They gave ground, first, on room dimensions and, secondly, on the phasing out of shared rooms, which is not now intended to take place until 2007. Is the reason for the delay in the publication of the draft regulations that the Government plan further concessions; namely, on training and staff?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. The preparation of draft guidelines and regulations must be undertaken very carefully. Thorough groundwork is being completed to ensure that we get them as right as we possibly can. The noble Lord spoke of "giving ground", yet during debates on the Bill as it passed through your Lordships' House many noble Lords urged the Government to be flexible in their response to the consultation we had with the care home industry to ensure that the regulations and standards were right. I believe that we have been flexible. We are giving time to care homes to enable them to come up to the standards we require. Ultimately, we will produce higher quality homes.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, bearing in mind the increasing proportion of older people in the population and their vulnerability. what consideration have the Government given to the need for a special commissioner with responsibility for the vulnerable elderly?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may make two comments. First, the commission itself will have a general obligation to report to and advise government on the matters for which they are responsible. As a body and through its regulation function, it will bring to itself a deep understanding of the issues relating to older people who are living in homes or are being helped by other services that are regulated. Through this, it will be able to give government careful and powerful advice. Secondly, important work is being undertaken through the national service framework for older people which is being prepared at the moment. This will ensure a high standard and consistency of service for older people across the whole of the NHS and, indeed, in personal social care.
Lord Laming: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance to the House that, when drawing up these standards, equal emphasis will be placed on the quality of life for and personal dignity of residents as well as to physical standards?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, I very much agree with that observation. A criticism that could be made of the existing provisions as regards the registration of care homes is that they focus too closely on physical standards and not sufficiently on the quality of care outcome and dignity. We shall ensure that the new commission, once it is established, takes fully into account the points raised by the noble Lord.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, while paying attention to the standards for older people, which is extremely important, will the Government take care that the introduction of these standards does not result in more homes being closed? That is the experience locally and could result in bed blocking in hospitals, which would certainly not be to the advantage of elderly people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I take the point that, when looking at the wholesale provision of services for older people across the NHS, personal social services and the independent care sector, we must ensure that an integrated approach is adopted. I believe that the developments we are making in intermediate care will be extremely important to the aim of ensuring that, in the future, many more people will be able to stay in their own homes and live independently rather than needing to move into care homes. As regards the issues surrounding the number of places in homes, the fact is that at present

1029
occupancy of care home beds is running at 88 per cent. Throughout the country as a whole there is sufficient provision, but I accept that such provision can be patchy and that there may be some areas where shortages can occur.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the establishment of a commission represents a major step forward in improving the standard of care for older people throughout the country? This matter is something about which many Members of this House have rightly complained over many years. Will the Government accept my congratulations on this development? Will the Minister also tell the House when the commission is to be fully operational?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am always happy to accept the congratulations of noble Lords and in particular from my noble friend. I agree with the criticism that the current regulatory activities of health and local authorities have been inconsistent. I believe that the appointment of a commission will lead to a higher consistency and standard of regulation. We hope that the new commission will operate in shadow form from April 2001. It will take over its legal duties in April 2002.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the further consultations on the regulations which the Minister mentioned in his Answer, will he seek the opinion of the Advisory Group on National Required Standards? Will he publish any recommendations that it makes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I imagine that it will be for that body itself to publish any recommendations it may make. I shall certainly draw the noble Lord's suggestion to the attention of the people concerned with the consultations.
Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister say how care homes are expected to finance the higher physical standards that will be introduced, bearing in mind that many of them cannot make ends meet on the current fee rates paid by local authorities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is a mixed picture throughout the country. Certainly, some homes feel that local authorities do not pay them sufficient fees; local authorities would argue that there is a market situation. We would encourage the closest possible partnership and relationship between care homes and local authorities. At a national level we are encouraging a concordat. Decisions in relation to funding will be taken by local authorities in the context of the overall increase in resources that is being given to them to fund social services generally. They will need to take that into account when agreeing fees with care homes. Generally, we must remember that while some homes
1030
will have to find extra resources, many homes are up to the standards that we expect the commission to recommend.

Nice Summit: Tax Veto
2.51 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the Nice European Council, whether the United Kingdom tax veto will necessarily be used on all issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government were right to insist at the Nice European Council that tax proposals must remain subject to unanimity. We shall continue to judge every tax proposal on its merits and according to the national interest.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it may be that my noble friend did not notice that he has not answered my Question. Perhaps I may revert to my specific Question. Suppose, for example, that every European Union state agreed with a measure that would eliminate to a large extent tax evasion and tax fraud. Can I take it that my noble friend and the Government would support such a measure and not veto it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think my Answer was a precise reply to my noble friend's Question. Clearly we try to avoid vetoes wherever we can. We try to achieve the national interest by agreement rather than by veto. If a proposal such as that suggested by my noble friend—and, of course, it is only a supposition on his part—were to be an unalloyed improvement in combating tax fraud, we would not need to veto it; we would approve it on its own merits.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will the Minister accept my congratulations on the Government allowing the British people to enjoy their 13th year with a top tax rate of 40 per cent, a rate which was introduced as a result of a radical move by my noble friend Lord Lawson in his 1988 Budget? Does the Minister recognise that in European terms Britain is now something of a tax haven? Does he agree that we must retain the veto because the French constantly call for a level playing field on tax, by which they mean that our tax rates should rise to their levels?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is merely congratulating the Government on fulfilling their election manifesto, which we have done not only in this case but in many other cases.

1031
As to the suggestion that the French, or any other European country, are seeking equal levels of taxation throughout Europe, I can say only that: that position was not seriously put forward at Nice and was not a result of Nice.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is it not a commonplace of economics that if there is to be a single market—and, as I understand it, everyone agrees, whatever their other views of the European Union, that there should be a single market—it must be beneficial largely to harmonise taxes? Do the Government accept that, at least, as a minimal proposition of tax policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have never been opposed to tax harmonisation when it is in the interests of this country. There has never been a blanket opposition to any move towards tax harmonisation. What we have opposed is any suggestion that the European Commission or the European Union should have control over our tax policy in this country. That position was sustained and upheld at Nice.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it will be widely welcomed that he has accepted that there is a distinction to be made between the existence of a veto, which is welcome, and its exercise, which is not always desirable? Does he further agree that the existence of the single market, and even more so the existence of the euro, makes diversity of taxes rather than harmonisation more desirable? Does he further agree that sometimes it may be desirable to join, or even help create, a consensus in favour of measures such as have been suggested for dealing on a European basis with tax avoidance or evasion, and even a common policy in regard to using fiscal measures to encourage the protection of the environment and public health?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think I can agree with the first and third of the propositions of the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. As to the question of whether the euro will increase the necessity for diversity in taxation levels or taxation policies—I am not quite sure which he is suggesting—that remains to be seen.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government have, in the course of the Nice negotiations, surrendered the veto which we previously had over measures to secure so-called enhanced co-operation? Is it not further the case that, as a result, a vanguard group of European countries can now go ahead with tax harmonisation and other measures, whether or not we like it? Was it not
1032
foolish of us to have abandoned so important a bargaining power without having gained any thing worth while in return?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid the first premise on which my noble friend bases his argument is simply untrue. There was no surrender of tax powers of any kind at the Nice Summit.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I really must correct that. My noble friend has got it wrong.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked a hypothetical question of the Minister. Perhaps I may ask him a practical question concerning events this week in Strasbourg. Is he familiar with, and can he shed some light on, the so-called RETT Committee, which is the committee on regional policy, transport and tourism? That committee decided on 22nd November, under procedure A5-0345/2000, by a vote of 48 to eight, that member states should impose a new taxing and charging system for public transport, the result of which will be new taxes on the use of cars, motor insurance, parking, roads, railways, stations. air transport and airports, shipping arid ferries, ports, bridges and so on? Will the Government veto this set of new taxes? If so, why did the Labour members of the committee vote for the new tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers to matters considered at the Nice European Council. I am not aware that the matter raised by the noble Lord was considered at that summit. I shall be happy to write to him on the subject and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

Clubs: Discriminatory Practices
2.59 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in the light of the recent continued refusal of the Carlton Club to admit women as full members.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, our expectation is that private clubs which allow access to membership to both men and women would want voluntarily to put a stop to any discriminatory practices they may have. We recognise that they may need time to do this.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she not agree that if a West End club, a golf club or, indeed, a working

1033
man's club were to exclude people from membership or access to membership because they were black, Jewish or had some kind of disability, there would be a public outcry? It would, of course, be illegal. Is it not even more offensive that private clubs are able to discriminate against people solely because they are women? Is this not a matter of civilised behaviour rather than a matter of political correctness? Will my noble friend join me in commending those members of the Carlton Club who have resigned their membership in protest against this decision? Can she say whether the Leader of the Opposition has joined them, as he said he would?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have no idea of the intentions of the Leader of the Opposition; nor do I know what standing Mr William Hague has in the Carlton Club or whether his threat to resign will lead those who want change to vote for it or to his persuading more people to do so. Members on the Opposition Benches may be able to answer that question. The Carlton Club was started in 1832 by those who were appalled at the Reform Act, which extended the franchise. So reactionaries started it, and reactionaries may win against progress today.
My noble friend referred to the difference between the Sex Discrimination Act and the Acts covering disability and race relations. Neither the SDA nor the DDA extend to private clubs, whereas the Race Relations Act extends to clubs with more than 25 members. These provisions reflect what Parliament thought appropriate at the time. Attitudes have since changed, and we believe that they will increasingly lead to change on a voluntary basis.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am not a member of the Carlton Club and cannot vote on this issue—but why does not the noble Lord join, so that he can? Such a demonstration that he has learnt the error of his ways might go down very well.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot answer for my noble friend.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, can the Minister report any progress within the Women's Institute, given that certain experiments in that regard have not been terribly successful?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is my belief that most of the activities of women's institutes should be joined by men. I am sure that they would make excellent jam makers, and the more members they can recruit, the better.
Lord Peston: My Lords, would my noble friend care to reflect on the Marxian view on this matter?
1034
I refer, of course, to Groucho Marx, who said that he would never join a club that would have him as a member. Surely, any woman offered membership of the Carlton Club should simply view the offer with contempt and do something much more useful.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not expect to be offered membership of the Carlton Club, so I do not think that I shall be placed in that dilemma.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her original Answer, in which she indicated that the Government are—unusually—prepared to leave people alone for once to do what they want.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's congratulations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, without prejudice to the issue of private clubs—which is a thorny one—does the Minister agree that if legislation were to be triggered by a political club, particularly one with a specific association with Her Majesty's Opposition, the impression given might be unfortunate? Is this a matter that can safely be left to the voters?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's answers, what plans does she have for the "women only" room set aside in this House for women Peers? Secondly, will the Minister be pressing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to relinquish his membership of the Garrick Club?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not have responsibility for decisions regarding rooms allocated in this House either for women or for men. So far as concerns my noble and learned friend's membership of the Garrick Club, I shall work on him!
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I was not, until I had it on the impeccable authority of my noble friend the Chief Whip—that the Farmers' Club has admitted women since its inception in 1842? If those bucolic attitudes are correct for farmers, should they not apply to other clubs as well?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the government view is that this is a matter for voluntary change.Personally—and I think that many of my noble friends agree with me—I prefer mixed membership.

Jobseeker's Allowance: Literacy Testing
3.5 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they expect to be the consequence of their proposed measure to force claimants for the jobseeker's allowance to take a literacy test under pain of benefit sanction; and how they intend to monitor those consequences.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on 5th December my right honourable friend issued Skills for Life, a statement for consultation on how the Government intend to improve the poor levels of adult basic skills in England by bringing about a sea change in the quality of adult learning. The statement set out how we shall pilot aspects of our approach among key target groups, such as the unemployed, by giving them incentives—but not compelling them—to improve their reading and writing. After considering partners' views, we shall launch the full strategy next month.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I did not expect an answer to my Question. Is the Minister aware that most adult illiterates will go to excessive lengths to conceal the fact of their illiteracy and that, therefore, many of them are likely to avoid the tests and suffer the sanctions? It is, therefore, the more important to ask the Minister, not for the first time, what monitoring the Government intend to do of the effect of sanctions. We were reminded recently by Professor Richard Baker that it is possible to conduct an extremely sophisticated study even of a small sample of death rates and to compare it with a balanced sample of similar age and social composition. Does the Minister share my curiosity to know whether being deprived of benefit is more dangerous or less dangerous than being a patient of Dr Harold Shipman?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by the noble Earl's remarks. I am surprised in particular that he has not recognised how important it is to help adult illiterates and to help those with poor basic skills to improve them. That is the thrust of the Government's policy. Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that in the South East some 60 per cent of those with poor basic skills are in work; they are not unemployed. The Government recently launched a new strategy setting out proposals for pilot schemes to try to find ways of helping adult illiterates to come forward. The noble Earl was far too defeatist in his suggestion that people will not do so—they are coming forward, and the Government are doing far more to help them to come forward.
To return to my initial Answer, we do not have plans to compel people; however, we do have plans to find ways to provide incentives to unemployed people to
1036
come forward. The Government's intention is to find ways of testing people so that they can be helped and be given opportunities to attend appropriate courses.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, however well intentioned the Government's plans, given the present crisis in teacher numbers where will the teachers come from to provide literacy classes?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the people involved in providing classes in adult literacy are quite different from those who are employed in our schools. There is no shortage of people wanting to work with adults who have literacy problems. There is a problem in regard to improving their training, and the Government are addressing that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the suggestion that literacy training should be linked to application for benefit was originally made when the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, was at the Dispatch Box opposite. If I remember correctly, the reason that it did not work very well was that the approach suggested then was precisely that proposed by the noble Baroness this time; namely, people will be expected to attend classes. Does the Minister appreciate that many of those who suffer in this way will not have the confidence to do so? Does she agree that what is needed is person-to-person tuition—very likely by volunteers? Will the Minister learn the lesson of the past and approach this important matter in that way?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is not entirely true to say that this rather skilled and difficult work can be undertaken by volunteers. On the whole, I believe that it is necessary for people to be professionally qualified to carry out such work effectively. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that some adults do not wish to join classes to improve their literacy, but she is perhaps not sufficiently aware of the developments that are taking place in IT. Large numbers of adults can be helped through IT programmes, where they can sit in front of a PC with interactive help from tutors, and where they are not exposed to ridicule or to feelings of inadequacy, as might be the case in a classroom.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that there are mentally handicapped people with such severe learning difficulties that they will always be illiterate but who, nevertheless, are capable of carrying out strenuous manual work, can the Minister say what the Government propose to do to help them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in responding to this question, we really ought to focus rather more on the nearly 6 million adults who have poor levels of skills in both literacy and numeracy. A small number of people have learning disabilities such that they may never learn to read, and they need to be helped in many other ways. The Government are doing this both through the provision of improved special educational

1037
needs assistance in our schools and through making more help available to those with learning difficulties when they become adults.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say whether these literacy tests will be applied to former prisoners? Indeed, considering all the emphasis that has been placed over the past few years on trying to teach prisoners to read and write, would not the Government have knowledge of the standard of literacy of former prisoners?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. The Government are doing very much more to develop prison education, especially in basic skills. We shall ensure that all prison entrants are screened. That may—and should—mean that when people come out of prison their levels of literacy are higher. They will then need to be given more help and guidance about how to carry on improving their skills which will, in turn, help them to obtain jobs and prevent reoffending.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on this point. I was slightly mystified by her earlier response on the question of adult literacy teaching by volunteers. Was the noble Baroness suggesting that those who have done this work in the past will not be qualified to do it in the future? Alternatively, does the noble Baroness not see this as part of this project of trying to encourage more people to improve their literacy?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I did not make myself clear on this point. It is the Government's view that this is very highly skilled work. Therefore, it cannot easily be undertaken by volunteers without the extensive involvement of professionally trained people. The Government intend to ensure that the vast majority of people involved in teaching adult literacy are trained.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in the Second Reading debate on the Social Security Fraud Bill, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question tabled in the other place on the inquiry regarding recently deceased patients in Bedford Hospital.

Social Security Fraud Bill [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
1038
We spend over £100 billion each year on social security. It is our duty to make sure that the system is secure from both fraud and error so that the right money goes to the right people. This duty is reflected in the department's Public Service Agreement, which includes a challenging objective to reduce losses from fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 25 per cent by 2004 and by 50 per cent by 2006.
Social security fraud costs at least £2 billion a year—and probably far more. To put that in perspective, I can tell the House that this year we plan to spend £1.7 billion on running the entire Benefits Agency. This level of loss is clearly unacceptable and we are determined to stem the flow. The vast majority of people who claim benefit are honest and it is unfair on both them and the taxpayers who foot the bill that a minority is cheating the benefit system.
A wide variety of frauds are perpetrated against the benefit system ranging from the opportunistic—such as the person who does not tell the Job Centre that he or she has started work—to the highly organised criminal gangs involved in counterfeiting or stealing instruments of payment and running false identity frauds. In just one investigation into the counterfeiting of giro cheques over 50 people have been arrested. Another investigation revealed that a gang had hijacked the identities of 171 people from the Irish Republic. The ring leaders received prison sentences of between three-and-a-half and four years. The fact that one of the gang was also sentenced for possessing a firearm shows that we are not up against amateurs but hardened criminals. Indeed, the latest report by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, whose role it is to assess the threat posed by organised crime, puts benefit fraud, along with drug trafficking, in the high impact category of criminal activities.
The report makes the point that organised crime exploits many illicit markets. Something like 17 per cent of the gangs involved in drug trafficking are also involved in benefit fraud. The two activities may, in some instances, be inextricably linked with the proceeds of benefit fraud going towards the ever larger wholesale purchases of drugs. Along with benefit fraud, the list of other activities such gangs are involved in makes chilling reading. I shall not go through it in its entirety, but it includes arms dealing, extortion, kidnapping, prostitution and child pornography.
I mention those facts not to be sensational, but to make the very serious point that every time we catch one of the gangs involved in benefit fraud and its members end up behind bars we are often putting a stop to a wide range of other serious criminal activities.
The system that we inherited in 1997 had four key weaknesses. Prior to 1995 there was no measurement of the amount of fraud in the system, so the scale of the problem was not understood. That meant that there was no overall strategy for safeguarding the system and, therefore, no meaningful targets which, in turn, meant that there was no objective measure of success. Secondly, the amount of fraud detected was the only

1039
measure of success. As a result, those paying benefits had the perverse incentive not to worry about preventing fraud because the more that entered the system the easier it was to find it and be rewarded for having found it.
The third weakness was inadequate investment in information technology, resulting in a failure to draw together all the information held on an individual's claims so as to guard against fraud and avoid error. For example, a local authority worker processing a claim for housing benefit did not have automatic access to details of an existing or previous award of income support. Finally, the fourth weakness was a culture throughout the organisation that too often regarded security as a bolt-on extra rather than an integral part of the everyday running of the social security system. There was not enough focus on delivery at the front end; for example, in 1997 two out of five income support claims were paid without enough evidence.
We are determined to secure the system from fraud and error. This is a huge task but we have made a good start. We set out our strategy in Safeguarding Social Security, published March 1999. For the first time we have a plan to secure the system from the first claim to the final payment. We have established a system that provides continuous measurement of levels of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance. For the first time, we have set a tough target for reducing the amount of fraud and error in the system so that people can judge our success for themselves. As I said, we seek to eradicate fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 25 per cent by March 2004 and by half by March 2006. Those are tough, challenging targets.
The National Audit Office supports the approach of setting targets for reducing fraud and error based on regular measurement. We have introduced tighter checks at the gateway to income support before money is paid out, and have already halved the number of income support claims that were paid without enough supporting evidence. That will save over £1 billion during the course of this Parliament.
Putting the system right will take time, but we are already seeing results from the new approach. Figures released at the end of November for benefit paid between April 1999 and March 2000 showed that losses from fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance had dropped by 6.5 per cent. More than 20,000 people were sanctioned or prosecuted in 1999–2000, which represented an increase of nearly 60 per cent on the previous year.
Specialist identity checks, which have been piloted in the Balham area since June 1997 (where there have been over 200 arrests), will operate across the country this year. Cross-checking DSS records and other state records has already saved over £150 million. We have introduced stronger powers to inspect employers' records to check on people who are working while claiming benefit as unemployed which we shall start using this year. Through tighter checks, targeted plans
1040
and better use of information we are continuing to turn the corner in the battle against fraud. But more needs to be done if we are to meet those challenging targets.
We need to make better use of IT. As a result of the Spending Review 2000, we have secured almost £2 billion for modernising our services. One of those aims is significantly to reduce fraud and error. We currently have the ability to check what claimants tell us with information held by other parts of government. We need to extend this to allow us to check information with new sources. We need to create a strong deterrent for people who are persistently fraudulent.
My noble friend Lord Grabiner, who will speak later this afternoon, was asked in November 1999 to investigate the informal economy. His report was published in March 2000 and it contained a series of recommendations to combat benefit fraud. This Bill carries forward the Government's commitment to combating benefit fraud by turning many of those recommendations into action.
Before turning to the detail of the Bill's proposals, and in case any noble Lords believe that we are talking about ignorance rather than fraud and about the kind of thing that anyone might stumble into and that therefore the DSS response is disproportionate—that is a view that I can understand noble Lords may hold—I wish to give a flavour of the kind of situations we are dealing with on a day-to-day basis.
Fraud takes place when people knowingly lie—I am not talking about accidental error—about their circumstances in order to gain benefit. The main types of fraud include someone who is working but not declaring earnings (including those of a partner). I give the example of a couple who had acquired sufficient funds through working and claiming to build themselves a brand new house. The man claimed he was sick and disabled and his wife received invalid care allowance for looking after him. It transpired that although she was caring for an invalid it was not her husband who was in work. She was in fact working at the local nursing home.
In another investigation, in an attempt to avoid detection, a man set up business as an IT consultant in a town nearly 40 miles away and by pretending to be homeless managed to obtain a local authority flat there. Meanwhile his wife and family stayed in the family home for which he was receiving mortgage assistance along with jobseeker's allowance.
The National Audit Commission has discovered a case of a local authority employee who worked for one local authority while on long-term sick leave from another. This is not a case of innocent error; it is deliberate and knowing fraud. We estimate that this type of error and fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance costs at least £350 million a year.
A second example of this type of fraud concerns undeclared capital. In one case an income support claimant had failed to tell the department that she had received a large sum by way of damages following an accident. She claimed to have received only £4,000. In

1041
fact the true amount was well into six figures and had been invested for growth on the advice of a financial consultant who stated in his letter,
"since you do not need the additional income from this capital as your current sources of income by way of your benefits adequately cover your normal living expenses".
We estimate that this type of fraud costs £34 million each year.
Further, there is undeclared income from other sources. I refer to a man who claimed income support but failed to declare that he was receiving an army pension. He was overpaid by £4,000. We estimate that this type of fraud costs £36 million a year.
I refer to family circumstances where people fail to tell us that someone is living with them. It may be hard to establish that because even if a partner is discovered living with them, and they have not declared that partner in terms of their income support claims, the standard response may well be that that person moved in the day before. However, I have come across other family circumstances in the Audit Commission's report. A widow received a pension of £3,000 a year and she died in 1988. Before her death her son had power of attorney over her affairs and continued for 10 years after her death to draw her pension. He also submitted three fraudulent life certificates and obtained £30,000. He went to prison for 15 months.
In another case on the positive side, if I may put it that way, the Contributions Agency recorded a widow as dead even though she received a work's pension and was alive and well but did not receive the DSS pension. In that case we were happy to ensure that she received £40,000 in back payments as a result of data matching.
I refer to residency fraud which involves a person claiming to be living at an address when they are actually living elsewhere. Further, there is identity fraud. The registrar's office referred a case after an application for three "dead" birth certificates from one address. Following investigation five non-UK citizens were prosecuted and convicted. They admitted using false identities. The loss was £42,000.
On top of that we have housing benefit fraud which costs us something like—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on the question of identity fraud, I tabled a Question a few months ago asking whether former senior members of MI5 were being brought in to help detect fraud. Will the noble Baroness confirm that that is still the situation? Is MI5 itself now being brought in?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is certainly the case that we have been using specialist advice from MI5 to train our own professional investigators. However, as the noble Lord will understand, at the end of the day, the investigation has to be carried out by people who know the social security rules and some of the techniques for evasion.
I return to housing benefit fraud where we are losing through local authorities something like £600 million a year of taxpayers' money. The Audit Commission
1042
reported a case where someone who worked for a local authority for a number of years claimed income support and housing benefit from an adjacent authority. That resulted in an overpayment of £50,000. Further investigation revealed tenancy fraud as the person was no longer living in the council house for which he received rebate, leaving an unauthorised tenant in occupation. The unauthorised tenant was also committing housing benefit fraud. So it goes on. Fraud corrupts the system. I repeat that we are not talking about the innocent, the ignorant, the illiterate or people who have difficulty with languages stumbling into error. In all of the cases I have mentioned we are talking about knowing and deliberate fraud in which people are working and claiming or have undeclared capital or income which they knowingly and wilfully refuse to declare. This is for the most part, or can be, organised, continuous and systematic fraud that corrupts the system and destroys people's confidence in the integrity of our welfare state.
We estimate that the amount lost to fraud—the figure bears repetition—is at least £2 billion. I hope that I have demonstrated that this fraud is not small time and is not a victimless crime. It is often planned, calculated and costly. It can be widespread and pervasive and it can corrupt. No one in this House would argue that the kind of fraud that I have mentioned would and should be tolerated. However, to cut fraud, we must have the means to do so; hence the Bill.
For every fraud case that we end—the cases I have mentioned are the fraud cases that have come to light and which we have been able to follow up—there are half a dozen others where we lack the powers to determine that fraud has occurred because we lack the powers to collect the appropriate information.
I give just one example of highly likely fraud which we could not determine because we lack the powers until—I hope with your Lordships' consent—this Bill becomes law. We suspected that a claimant was working in the building industry, as he had done frequently in the past. But despite numerous visits scattered between 8.30 in the morning and five o'clock at night, he was never at home. When we finally caught up with him he said that he was vaguely looking for work but could not account for the fact that he was not in on the occasion of a dozen or so visits. No information was given to us as to where he had been that we could check. When we asked to see his bank statements, we saw that there were regular and substantial cheques deposited which the claimant said were there because he was doing a favour for a friend who did not have a bank account. When we asked, however, if he would allow us to check with his bank to confirm the story—if it were true, there should be no problem in checking—he refused. Had we had the powers under the Bill, we might have been able to stop what I think most of us would be pretty sure was fraud. As it was, we could do nothing and he went on his merry way.

1043
The powers we seek in this Bill help us to reduce that loss through prevention and earlier detection, using the powers to acquire data from the private sector and to secure deterrence, through the powers to remove benefit from persistent benefit offenders and the swift, effective punishment of collusive employers.
Turning now to measures proposed by this Bill, one of the key recommendations in the report of my noble friend Lord Grabiner on the informal economy was a power to take benefits away from people who persistently abused the benefit system. For the vast majority of benefit cheats, their first conviction is their last because the whole process of being interviewed under caution, appearing in court, being sentenced and perhaps finding themselves in their local paper is salutary. However, there are some who continue to offend. They must be made to realise that they cannot abuse the benefit system with impunity.
This Bill provides that those convicted of benefit fraud by the courts will be warned that a further conviction by the courts within three years would mean that they could lose benefits for a period of 13 weeks. This would happen when they defraud virtually any social security benefit. These are known as disqualifying benefits. But the sanction itself will apply to a smaller range, the sanctionable benefits. We will not apply the sanction to benefits which are specifically for children (child benefit and guardian's allowance) nor to those which meet the extra costs of disability (DLA or attendance allowance). Nor will we sanction retirement pension, as research has shown this benefit to be virtually free of fraud by retirement pensioners.
The measures are intended to be tough but, as with other sanctions in the social security system, they include fall-back provisions, and rightly so, to protect the vulnerable and those dependent on them, in particular the families of those who rely on income-related benefits. They will be able to apply for help under a hardship scheme if their other resources are insufficient to prevent hardship. They will be paid at a rate which reduces the offender's personal allowance by 40 per cent—or 20 per cent for cases of particular risk; for example, where a member of the household is seriously ill. Benefit levels for the rest of the household would be unaffected. For people on income support, access to such a scheme would be automatic. Housing benefit would remain in payment, as would access to other benefits such as milk tokens and free school meals.
The scheme is a close reflection of the hardship scheme which already operates for labour market sanctions, which has been tried and tested. We believe this scheme is fair, in that it strikes the right balance between, on the one hand, a punishment which brings home the point that fraud will not be tolerated, and on the other, ensures that offenders, and their families in particular, do not suffer unduly.
I should stress that the main aim of this measure is deterrence. We do not want to see it applied to large numbers of people; indeed, quite the reverse. The fewer people who are subject to the sanction, the better because that means it is working.
1044
Over and beyond the deterrent sentence, a second key to cracking benefit fraud identified by my noble friend's report is the need for access to independent information about a claimant's financial and other circumstances. Fraud is committed by people deliberately telling lies or concealing the facts about their circumstances. If we are to succeed in rooting fraud out of the system, we need to be able to check with third parties what people tell us. I referred to the man who said that the money in his bank account was there on behalf of a friend. We could not check that out. If we suspect that a person is claiming benefit and is concealing his earnings from work, cross-checking that information with banks would help to establish the fraud.
The Bill includes measures to allow authorised officers in the DSS and local authorities to require information from specified private and public sector organisations, including banks, building societies and credit reference agencies where we have reasonable grounds. It does not provide powers to pry carte blanche into people's bank accounts and go on fishing trips. The Bill is clear on this point, and the point will also be made clearly in a publicly available code of practice—discussions on that begin next week—which will set out how the powers will be used for all to see.
I should like to make clear to your Lordships what is meant by the phrase "reasonable grounds for suspicion"; otherwise I imagine that noble Lords will seek to press me on that. First, it is important to say that what constitutes reasonable grounds will vary and it is not appropriate to put specific conditions into legislation. But there would be reasonable grounds for suspicion where there were cogent reasons to believe that a person was receiving or claiming benefit fraudulently. Staff authorised to use these powers will need to analyse and record their grounds for the suspicion and they will always consider whether there could be an innocent explanation for any circumstances. We might take into account tip-offs from members of the public, suspicious behaviour on the part of a claimant, or unsatisfactory identity documents.
Objective statistical evidence that a person was disproportionately likely to be fraudulent would also provide reasonable grounds. We know that people who have committed benefit fraud before are more likely to be fraudulent. I stress that the evidence would need to be objective and that it would not be lawful to use these powers to discriminate on grounds such as race or sex.
I appreciate that some of your Lordships may have concerns on the extent to which these new powers would give the department access to what in the normal course of events is confidential information. These powers would not be unique in Europe—indeed, Sweden has wider powers in its legislation. Many other countries do not have the same difficulty because they have national ID cards. One of our difficulties is precisely because we do not.
The department estimates that it loses up to a quarter of a billion pounds each year through housing benefit being paid on empty properties. In some cases

1045
this will be a calculated fraud in that the address is being used to support a claim, for example, to income support or jobseeker's allowance under a false identity—known in the trade as a "giro drop"; in other words, the fraud is committed by the landlord who does not tell the local authority that the tenant has moved out but continues to collect the giro. In other instances the tenant simply abandons the property without bothering to tell the landlord or local authority. For that kind of fraud, it will help us if we can obtain information from the utility companies about abnormal levels of consumption which may indicate benefit fraud. If, for example, there is no consumption but the giro cheque is being sent out, one could have reasonable grounds for believing that the house is unoccupied and, therefore, that the person has no right to a housing benefit giro.
The social security system is also subject to attack from overseas where people fraudulently claim benefit in more than one country at a time or use false, borrowed or stolen foreign identities to claim benefit fraudulently in the UK. I gave an example earlier of 171 identities hijacked by one gang. In order to combat the growth of transnational benefit fraud, we need to have more routine exchange of information with overseas social security administrations. That will be of mutual assistance. Those powers in the Bill would allow the DSS to supply information to other countries and, where another country had a similar power, would allow exchange back to us. We would establish arrangements to exchange information with other countries only where we are content that the country in question has adequate safeguards in place against the improper use of any information disclosed.
As I have said, people working and claiming benefit—including housing benefit—to which they are not entitled cost the department, we estimate, up to half a billion pounds a year. We have looked beyond the problem itself to one of its major facilitators: too often employers are more than happy to have the state subsidise their wage and national insurance bills by colluding with their employees in committing this type of benefit fraud. They are taking advantage of their workforce by denying them proper terms of employment and they gain unfair advantage in the market place by paying low wages. This is unfair competition against honest employers.
The prosecution of employers who have colluded in benefit fraud can be lengthy and costly and is not always the most effective way of tackling this problem. Obviously we will continue to prosecute the more serious cases, but for the less serious cases the Bill for the first time allows the application of a swift civil penalty that will bring home the message that operating in the informal economy by the employer carries a high price and will not be tolerated. The Bill will strengthen our ability to reach out to employers who collude with employees in such fraud.
The measures provide that an administrative penalty of between £1,000 and £5,000 would be offered to a colluding employer as an alternative to prosecution. The penalty would be subject to the same
1046
safeguards as currently apply to administrative penalties for claimants. The employer will have the option of having the court decide the case; if an employer accepts the penalty as an alternative to going to court, he will have up to 28 days to change his mind but he may prefer the fine to the court prosecution; and it would be quicker and more efficacious from the department's point of view.
A great deal of fraud, estimated as up to 70 per cent, occurs not at the start of a claim but afterwards when changes of circumstance—the claimant has gone back to work or "repartnered"—which affect benefit entitlement go unreported. Current legislation fails to impose a watertight duty on claimants to report changes and is therefore inadequate. We are reforming those powers to ensure that they are effective, and to make it clear that there is a duty on the part of claimants to report such major changes of circumstance.
Finally, the Bill contains three tidying-up measures. First, it will clarify the legislation which enables prosecution when claimants deliberately fail to report changes of circumstance. Secondly, it enables the DSS and local authorities to act together in offering administrative penalties in place of prosecution in cases involving housing benefit and council tax benefit as well as a DSS administered benefit. Thirdly, the Bill will strengthen arrangements for the supply of information by local authorities to the DSS by specifying in directions rather than regulations what information is required from local authorities. It will also bring Scottish legislation on the timing of prosecutions into line with that for England and Wales.
Those are important measures. They are not directed against the innocent, the erroneous or people who could reasonably not have understood that some change in their circumstances makes them open to fraud. We are talking about serious, persistent, knowing, collusive fraud, so certified by magistrates in court. If such a person repeats the offence after that, the benefit penalty will kick in.
I am sure that your Lordships agree that it is not unreasonable that someone who defrauds the system not just once, but twice, as established by law, should not continue to receive benefit. I therefore hope for the support of your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether she will excuse my ignorance, if ignorance it be, but are the documents that a person is required to sign before benefit is granted, giving details of their assets, their income and other vital information, made subject to a declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835? If they are, a charge of perjury is also relevant. That would also be a deterrent for people who may be wobbling on the edge of doing something fraudulent and may persuade them that the penalties are much too serious.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, applicants certainly have to sign documents testifying that the information that they have given is correct. I shall ask

1047
my officials whether we can strengthen the point that my noble friend has suggested. If people sign a document that they know to be incorrect, they may risk a charge of perjury. It would be useful to strengthen the provisions to discourage people back to the side of virtue.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, following on from that, would not the statutory declaration have to be made in front of a solicitor? That is inconceivable for most applications. We are talking about fraud, but not perjury.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that may well be the case, but at the moment an applicant has to sign the documents stating that the information given is correct. In that sense they can be said to have given false information if it is not correct. One of our difficulties is that when people do so, we have no definable offence with which to charge them.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
3.43 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in 1997, the Labour Party manifesto promised tough action to combat benefit fraud. In 1998, those objectives were repeated in a Green Paper on welfare. In 1999, the Government launched a formal strategy for tackling the problem and in July 2000 more consultative documents were issued. In all, more than 40 statements have been made on the subject since the Government came to office. In the meantime, a large and important problem that the Government should tackle has remained.
As the Minister has pointed out, it is difficult to estimate the size of the problem. The Government's estimated cost to the taxpayer of £2 billion a year is probably the minimum. The figure may be as high as £7 billion. It is clearly a major problem.
With their repeated statements but little action, the Government have failed to make effective use of the considerable powers that they already have. One has only to look at the report of the Public Accounts Committee on housing benefit fraud to see that. One official from the Department of Social Security said that only 700 out of 200,000 detected cases were successfully prosecuted. I understand that the housing benefit form used by local authorities has never been standardised. There must be one version that would be best for all. Many issues have not been effectively pursued. I shall come to a much more important example in a moment.
We are anxious that effective action should be taken. The timing of the Bill may be unfortunate in two respects. It is true that the consultative exercise was on the measures that the Bill now contains, but the wording of the Bill was published only on 18th December and we are debating it on the second day back after the Recess. It has been difficult for outside organisations to respond on the details. I am still receiving representations and no doubt will continue to do so for some days to come.
1048
There is also a timing problem because of the speculation that there is likely to be a general election in April or May. Even if the election is on a longer time-scale, we shall be up against time pressures. That puts a heavy responsibility on your Lordships. If Parliament is curtailed, there may be very little time for another place to consider the matter, in which case the Government may then use their massive majority to force the Bill through on a guillotine. We have a difficult task ahead of us to consider the details of the Bill.
While we understand and support the objective of the Bill, we share the considerable reservations that some outside bodies have expressed on a number of important aspects relating to human rights, the effect on the Data Protection Acts, the burden on business, the costs and efficiency of the operation and the sanctions and penalties to which the Minister referred at the end of her speech. We shall need to examine all those issues in great detail in Committee and at subsequent stages.
We have been helped by two important reports. The Scampion report was set up by the Government and published in February 2000. The other report was produced by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, whom I am glad to see in his place. The Minister referred to the noble Lord's report, but not to the Scampion report. The only comment that I can find on the Government's attitude to its recommendations is a response by Mr Rooker in another place to a parliamentary Question by Mr Willetts. The Answer says that the Government will strengthen the central organised fraud investigation service. Am I right in thinking that that means that the Government are setting up a single benefits investigation agency combining the present Benefits Agency security investigative service and the benefits fraud investigative service? It would also be helpful to know whether any of the other proposals in the Scampion report that the Government propose to accept require legislation. If so, it would be convenient to incorporate them in the Bill rather than wait for another occasion.
The report by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, was very cogent and, in some ways, easy to read, given the subject matter. If I may presume to say so, it was a very elegant report. That is not to say that I agree with everything in it. Personally, I am a little less dismissive of the idea of an amnesty, which he considered and dismissed. The Government have resorted to amnesties in various ways in Northern Ireland and there was also a national amnesty for firearms. As the noble Lord's report says, we need to get people out of the informal, illegal economy and into the legitimate economy. An amnesty may be one way of securing a rapid improvement among people who have drifted into fraud one way or another, perhaps by continuing to draw the same benefit after they start living with someone else. As I say, it is a personal view, but I believe that we should perhaps give the matter a little more consideration.
In his report the noble Lord makes a number of important recommendations. By and large the Government have accepted them and incorporated

1049
them in the Bill. I shall turn to the details in a moment. However, I want to query whether the existing measures are being used efficiently. In his report, the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, quotes a figure which suggests that for every pound expended on trying to deal with benefit fraud, the return may be £1.20. He says that one must place that against the priorities of the Government. With regard to other questions of fraud in relation to large business, the return may be as high as £1.57 for every pound expended.
Leaving the law on one side and turning to economics, it is a well established principle that if one wants to maximise one's returns, one carries out an activity until the margin of cost is equal to the margin of revenue. Apart from the provisions in this Bill, clearly that is not happening. The Government are simply not making available the resources which, as we understand it, will lead to a net gain to the Exchequer. Before we examine the further measures in the Bill, I believe that we need to consider most carefully the noble Lord's suggestion that the Government should concentrate on big business rather than the minor frauds with which the Bill deals primarily. As I said, we have misgivings and I believe that outside bodies have also expressed misgivings about the proposals.
The Government placed in the Library a summary of the responses to their consultative document on these issues, which reflected the noble Lord's report. Perhaps I may say that it is a very "summary" summary. It would have been—and still will be—extremely helpful for us to know the exact responses of those bodies, not least when we reach Committee stage, which I understand is to take place shortly. The noble Baroness raises her eyebrows. We shall leave it to the usual channels.
However, the point that I make is that the whole of the reports should be placed in the Library without delay. That will provide the basis for considering in Committee the considerable misgivings which have been expressed by a large number of outside bodies. Obviously, on this occasion I do not have time to go into great detail about the various representations which have been and, indeed, are being made. However, we need to know not the summary of the responses but the precise misgivings which outside bodies may have, particularly those affected by the various organisations mentioned in Clause 1.
Considerable concerns exist in relation to the human rights aspect of the matter and, indeed, in relation to the more narrow question of the way in which the Government effectively are knocking a large hole in the existing protections so far as concerns data protection. Effectively, the Government are providing cover for the various bodies set out in Clause 1, if I may express it that way, for revealing information, which, under existing law, they would not be entitled to do.
I believe that in particular concern has been expressed by the British Bankers' Association and others about the scope which the Bill now gives for fishing expeditions. Rather than genuinely believing that a particular individual or group of people is committing fraud, information will simply be obtained
1050
under a broadly based system. I believe that we shall need to consider the issue of such fishing expeditions and rule them out. Perhaps we shall need to make an amendment on the face of the Bill. The Minister said that a code of conduct is about to be produced. We should like to see it. However, as she well knows, a code of conduct is not the same as a provision written into the legislation.
Perhaps I may refer to one or two representations which have been received so far. I received one only this morning from the local authorities organisation. That body is concerned that the cost of operating the provisions of the Bill will fall on local authorities, whereas the benefit of stopping the fraud will go directly to the Exchequer. No doubt that is a point that we shall need to consider. I believe that the whole relationship between central government and local authorities in tackling this problem requires most careful review.
Perhaps I may also pick up on a point made by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. That organisation is concerned about confidentiality and has noted with pleasure the fact that it is not covered by the Bill. However, it is worried that that may become the case by statutory instrument subsequently. I believe that a clear assurance needs to be made on that point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful for that rapid reply. As we well know, the citizens advice bureaux do a magnificent job in the field of social security and it would be sad if their activities were to be inhibited.
The banks are concerned about various aspects of the Bill; for example, in relation to the civil liberties of their customers. It is rather like the famous after-dinner joke of Lord Denning, who used to say that he once appeared before a judge and said that he represented a God-fearing limited liability company. I believe that when the banks say that they are concerned about their customers' civil liberties, that may be a little ultra mires.
There are other areas of concern; for example, in relation to credit agencies. I believe that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that if the Department of Social Security says to a credit agency, "We are suspicious about Mr Bloggs", that is unlikely to improve Mr Bloggs' future rating with the credit agency. A similar concern has been expressed by a group called CIFAS, which is anxious to be treated on a reciprocal basis: if it provides information to the Government, the Government should provide it with information. Again, that raises difficult questions and we begin to enter something of a minefield so far as concerns safeguards.
Leaving to one side the point that I have just made, I believe that the banks have a real cause for concern not only as regards the disclosure of information but also as regards the position of their staff; for example,

1051
where an individual may be held responsible for giving information wrongly or perhaps giving wrong information. The banks stress that they currently have safeguards in place which protect them. They are worried that they will no longer be protected as fully under this Bill as they might wish to be.
I turn to the question of the burden on business. Paragraph 187 of the Explanatory Notes—and, indeed, the regulatory impact memorandum—suggests that the annual cost to business will be between £2.5 million and £7.6 million. I am not clear whether that is the net cost after the reimbursement of costs for which provision is made in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether that cost is net or gross.
In any event, it issues rather strange that the organisations which may be reimbursed are not the same as those which appear in Clause 1. The clause which relates to reimbursement covers rather fewer organisations and it appears that some of the burden will fall on individual companies. The regulatory assessment states that the Government do not normally pay for costs which are imposed on business by statute. That may be so, but it does not make the costs any less so far as concerns business. That is, perhaps, yet another form of stealth tax. It may involve immediate costs and the general disruption of a business, if the Government make many applications about numerous individual cases or about collective cases, if that more organised form of fraud is committed.
Outside bodies have made the important point that the request for information should be centralised in the sense that they should not receive requests for information from half a dozen different government departments, such as the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Benefits Agency; requests should be made through only one route. Similarly, a request should be made only to a particular part of the organisation from which the information is requested. That would not permit an official from the relevant local authority who is concerned with housing benefit to go to a local bank and say, "I should like to know about Mr Bloggs". That would be dangerous in many ways.
I am rather concerned about the extent to which the information will be available in a wider field. We know that such matters are not necessarily water-tight. The regulatory assessment suggests that one might state, "We might just ask for a copy of your latest bank statement". I should not be happy if my bank statement were to start floating around a local authority office. We need to consider the serious issues of security that are raised. From the point of view of the government department and the individual organisation of which information is asked, there appears to be a strong case for centralising the request for information. We need a one-channel system if we are to deal with the matter effectively.
I am conscious of the time and of the fact that other noble Lords wish to speak. In her closing remarks, the Minister discussed the question of penalties. Those of
1052
us who were involved with the passage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 and with previous relevant legislation know that several problems are associated with the withdrawal of benefit. That involves the so-called Windlesham amendment. The Minister is clearly sensitive to that issue, as are Members on the Liberal Benches and on these Benches. Clearly, the Government have gone to considerable lengths to safeguard their position. For example, they said that if the penalty involved reducing income support to only 10p a week, the relevant sum would not fall below that. That means that the related passported benefits would not also be withdrawn—that would be a draconian step. On the other hand, the more that one softens the benefit penalties in the manner prescribed in the Bill, the less effective those penalties are likely to be. A balance needs to be struck, and we shall consider it when we come to the Committee stage.
This is an important Bill. I believe that all noble Lords share its objective, but it has to be viewed in a wider context. Much more can be done outside the Bill, in terms of tackling benefit fraud. Too little has been done until now, and more must be done. We must also ensure that the Bill's balance between achieving its objective and avoiding the dangers that are implicit in several of its proposals are carefully considered. I am sure that we shall do that when we come to the Bill's later stages.
4.3 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may first congratulate the Minister on her opening speech. She spoke with great balance, discretion and care.
The points that the Minister made through her examples are well taken. I accept that, although error and fraud may be confused at the margins, we are dealing with a considerable quantity of real fraud involving malice aforethought. I have encountered most of the types of fraud that she described. Through our business in the House, I have read or heard about many cases. I have also come across one or two examples that are rather worse than any that she mentioned. I recently heard of someone who was using social security fraud to raise capital to run his business as a drug dealer. That is worse than anything that the Minister mentioned.
The problem is not particularly new. I know of the case of a half-pay captain who retired on half pay in 1709. The pension remained in payment until 1812. It is possible that that was not fraudulent, but I find it exceedingly improbable. On the other hand, I am rather sceptical about any attempt to estimate the amount of fraud. I have not forgotten Lord Boyd-Carpenter asking the then Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, how the government can know the amount of undetected fraud. I have not heard an answer to that question, and I do not expect to.
Clearly, something has to be done about the problem, which is a crime and a sin. We are all against it, and we all want to see the problem reduced. All

1053
fraud is committed at someone else's expense. However, a balance needs to be struck. We want to fight fraud, to preserve confidentiality and to secure the delivery of benefit to those in need as fast as possible. Those are three good objectives, but we must admit that they are capable of conflicting with one another. When they do, striking a balance is a delicate and sometimes rather difficult operation.
The Minister will be aware that I have a growing reservation about the usefulness of single-purpose Bills. When we consider such Bills, it is extremely easy for the single purpose to become the only matter that is in our minds. The striking of the balance is therefore addressed with a great deal less care than it would be in a Bill that reformed the law on social security in general.
I was a great deal more sympathetic to the Bill before I read it in detail. It addresses real problems but, in practice, it creates many difficulties. On the code of practice, incidentally, to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred, it would be of material assistance to us if the code could be made available to us before we go into Committee. That would save us a good deal of time.
I thank the Minister and her office for the memorandum I received this morning addressing the way in which the Bill was drafted. It interpolated the Bill and related it to 2,000 amendments to the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That was most welcome and most appreciated. However, those in the world at large who have to construe the Bill will not have the benefit of advice from the Minister's private office explaining how that should be done. We should think about the difficulties we create by such an acrostic method of legislation.
We should consider the many questions that are raised by the use of such powers. First, we should consider to whom the information is to be made available. Misgivings have been expressed about how widely disseminated within the Department of Social Security the information will be. Clearly, the more widely disseminated it is, the more risk there will be of its spreading outside its proper circle and being used for something other than its proper purposes. That relates again to the question of the purpose for which the information can be used.
In common with other noble Lords, I have recently been reading obituaries of the late George Carman. The name of Gillian Taylforth comes to mind. She supplied information in good faith, as by law bound, to the police but found that information on the front page of the Sun. I remember a case during the previous Parliament of a Member of Parliament who was found unconscious and drunk in Great Smith Street. The police took no action and laid no charges, but details of the episode were found in the pages of the Daily Mail. Clearly, there is always the possibility of information, especially if it is scandalous, being disseminated in quarters and for purposes for which it was not designed. I should be happier if there were a
1054
reservation in the Bill banning the use of the information for purposes other than that of fighting benefit fraud.
On what grounds will the information be required, and of whom? I have no objection to the phrase, "reasonable ground for suspicion", and take the Minister's points on that. But when we look at page 2 of the Bill, the question arises, suspicion of what? That needs a little more thought than has so far been given to the matter. If we look at what will be new subsection (2C) on page 2, we see that it says that information may be required if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that,
"a person … has contravened, is contravening or is likely to contravene provisions of the relevant legislation [or] … has committed, is committing or is likely to commit a benefit offence".
That reminds me of my old childhood example of the children before a juvenile court who were prosecuted for loitering with intent to press button B. The magistrates very properly threw it out. We cannot get the proof of something that is in the future. The criminal law is not in the business of weather forecasting, and as soon as it goes into it, it becomes as unreliable as the weather forecasts are already. That is no fault of the weather forecasters; we live in an unpredictable climate, politically as well as meteorologically.
But what worries me most is paragraph (c) of the new subsection. Information may be required of,
"a person belonging to any description of persons who are more likely than others to fall within paragraph (a) or (b) above".
I heard the Minister say that that cannot be used on grounds of race or gender. She is correct and I am glad she said that. But I imagine the Minister will agree that, though it is illegal so to use it, there is little doubt that it will be so used in practice. Those doing it may be unaware that they are doing it, which is part of the problem of institutional racism, or will dress it up so that it does not appear that they are so doing. It happens in all quarters. As I heard Commander Grieve admitting on "Newsnight" last night—he is a man whom I would treat as an extremely good, reliable and responsible source—it would not be illegal to use that paragraph on grounds, for example, of sexual orientation.
The Minister mentioned previous offences. But that offends the basic common law principle of presumption of innocence. If we go after people because they have committed previous offences, we get into the area of hunting people because of what they have done in the past, and there is then the real danger of a vendetta. I hope that the Minister will think for herself and take that out voluntarily before I have to table an amendment on it. She has a great deal of sense; I think she may.
Liberty raised the question of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am not a lawyer. I shall not give a verdict on that. But it appears to me to be the case that under Article 8.2 of the convention, the question to be addressed is whether the remedy is proportional to the mischief. It seems to me possible that the greater the degree of safeguards in

1055
the Bill, the greater the likelihood that the court will find that the remedy should be proportional to the problem. That is an amateur opinion. The Minister will no doubt be able to obtain expert advice, from behind her as well as from other quarters, and I shall listen to that with interest.
Again, the question arises as to who may be added to the list of those from whom information may be required. Under subsection (3) on page 3, we see that "any person" may be added. That is a little sweeping. I heard the Minister's reassurance about the CAB and was extremely grateful for it. But the Minister must realise that, like the Pope, she cannot bind her successors. Any future Minister in her position may well give a different answer. That is the trouble with leaving unexploded vires lying about in statutes. As far as I can see, that provision could perfectly well be used if a paper ran a story on social security fraud—as papers do from time to time—to require an editor to reveal his sources. If that is not so, I shall be extremely grateful to be told that it is not; and to be told why it is not. The question may be worth pursuing.
Some practical points arise from the Bill. It has been alleged in the press that the Data Protection Registrar has misgivings about this Bill. I shall be glad to know whether that is actually the case. If it is, on what grounds? And what efforts have been made to allay those misgivings?
I am interested in the point made by the National Housing Federation on the question of how far the landlord is responsible for reporting change of circumstance. That is, as I understand it, a complicated "horses for courses" situation depending largely on who receives the housing benefit. But clarification is needed and, since it is not clearly understood by those who will be affected by it, such clarification will be extremely welcome. The whole question of treatment of change of circumstances in housing benefit law needs much thought.
Then we come to the remedies suggested by the Minister under this Bill: first, disentitlement to benefit. Clearly there must be punishment for fraud and that punishment must be sufficient to deter. But in my scale of consequences, disentitlement is arguably a more severe punishment than imprisonment. I wonder therefore whether it is exactly proportional. I can see a strong case for imprisonment. But leaving people with no visible means of subsistence is something which the Minister knows, and has known for a long time, gives me profound misgivings.
What if the person concerned belongs to a category which is in no good position to do anything about it? Suppose it is a woman who left home because of domestic violence. Women in that situation often do not have their records in particularly good order. Or suppose it is a recent ex-prisoner, immediately discharged; a person with a criminal record—that is tautological—and therefore knowing, if they are destitute, where they can go to do something about it. It is not a good idea to draft legislation with the purpose of leading us into temptation. That is done enough by the forced circumstances anyway. We do not need to do it any more.
1056
We also need to consider—the Minister knows it is crucial to us on these Benches—what monitoring will be done of the consequence of depriving people of benefit; in particular, whether the Government will monitor, first, conviction rates of those disentitled to benefit against those of others in a similar economic position; secondly, the death rates of those disentitled against those in a similar economic position; and, thirdly, the rates of hospital admission against those in a similar economic position. We need to consider how far that may be properly done by delegated powers.
I leave the Minister with one final point relating to the exchange of information with overseas governments. I would welcome a categorical assurance that under no circumstances will anybody who has applied for political asylum have information about them made available to the governments from which they asked that asylum. We have a great deal of work in front of us. But that is all I wish to say at the moment.

Bedford Hospital: Storage of Corpses
4.19 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat as a Statement the Answer given this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to a Private Notice Question in another place. The Answer is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, as Members of the House are aware, last week the bodies of deceased patients were inappropriately kept in a chapel of rest at Bedford Hospital.
"Let me say at the outset that what happened in Bedford Hospital was totally and utterly unacceptable. Patients and their relatives have a right to be treated with dignity and respect at all times in the NHS. In this case they were not.
"We have a responsibility to get to the bottom of what went wrong in Bedford. Over the weekend an investigation was begun by the Eastern Regional Office of the NHS Executive. An initial report has been made verbally to the NHS Chief Executive, Mr Nigel Crisp. The final report of the full investigation will be published. I will ensure it is placed in the Library of the House.
"I am advised by Mr Crisp that the initial findings in respect of this incident found a failure of management within the trust. The trust's chief executive, Mr Ken Williams, has now stepped down. In the circumstances that was the right thing to do.
"In the past there were no clear guidelines about how dignity and respect for deceased patients should be ensured. The NHS now has guidelines that emphasise the need for standards to respect patients' dignity. They were issued by my department to every hospital in May last year. The guidance was repeated in November last year. In Bedford that guidance was not adequately implemented.

1057
"The preliminary inquiries appear to show that in the past when the mortuary facility was full, the deceased were kept in the chapel of rest. Following the issuing of guidance in May, an extra purpose-built mortuary facility was purchased at a cost of £20,000. I am advised that the additional facility was at no stage full. It was functioning normally apart from a minor problem with the doors. The problem was reported on Monday of last week but final action was not taken until Thursday. During that period last week bodies were placed inappropriately in the chapel of rest. There were no policies or procedures in place in the hospital to ensure that the bodies of deceased patients were treated with respect and dignity at all times.
"This was not a cash problem in the hospital. It was not a capacity problem in the hospital. It was a management problem in the hospital: a failure to implement clear national guidance and a failure to resolve immediately a clear local problem. The issue should and could have been sorted out on the spot.
"Instead, deceased patients were denied their dignity. That should never happen in any part of the NHS. Those who say that what happened in one part of Bedford Hospital is a reflection of what happens across NHS hospitals are wrong. They do not do justice to the efforts of the 1 million people who work in the health service who strive day in, day out to maintain and raise standards of care for patients.
"It is deeply regrettable that in Bedford decisions taken inside the hospital prevented deceased patients receiving the respect that their relatives have every right to expect from an NHS hospital.
"Yesterday the NHS Chief Executive wrote to all trusts reminding them of their duty to treat the deceased with dignity and sensitivity in line with the guidance issued last year. The Health and Safety Executive will be visiting Bedford Hospital on 18th January. The independent inspectorate for the NHS, the Commission for Health Improvement, will begin its inspection on 29th January. The inspection will now cover this matter as part of its wider inspection of the hospital.
"The events in Bedford last week should never have happened. They need never have happened. I am deeply sorry that they did".
My Lords, that concludes the Answer.
4.23 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. Since the weekend the press reports about the treatment of dead bodies in Bedford Hospital have shocked the country. I am sure that all noble Lords would wish to sympathise with the relatives of the deceased patients involved. It is not simply the photographic images that have distressed us, nor, indeed, the fact that dead patients could be treated with such indignity or apparent lack of respect, but what these incidents appear to tell us about the workings of this hospital and about the NHS in general.
1058
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Is it true that the practice of storing bodies in the hospital chapel has been going on for months and that NHS guidance issued last May has been consistently ignored? Can the Minister confirm what he repeated in the Answer; namely, that the chief executive of the trust, Mr Ken Williams, has resigned? I ask that because although the resignation of Mr Williams has been extensively reported, it is also alleged that at a hospital staff meeting last night Mr Williams was described as having "stepped aside". Stepping aside does not sound quite the same as resigning. I should be grateful for clarification.
When the Commission for Health Improvement looks at Bedford Hospital, will Ministers take steps to satisfy themselves that the board of the trust is competent to meet its responsibilities? The scandal has been attributed to the failure of the trust's management in general. However, is it the case that the chairman of the trust was asked to resign and declined? In asking that, I intend no personal slight on Professor Blowers, the trust chairman. However, it is striking that not only he but two of the other four members of the board are declared activists of the Labour Party and were appointed in the latter part of 1997; in other words, a majority of the board are openly Labour Party supporters. The Labour Party document entitled Renewing the NHS:Labour's Agenda for a Healthier Britain, published in June 1995 states:
"Health authorities and hospital boards will not be stuffed full of party political placemen".
As the Minister will recall, Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, published a report last year in which she stated:
"candidates who declare political activity on behalf of the Labour Party—
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Perhaps I may ask him the relevance of what he now says to the Statement which has been given? I cannot see any relevance.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that the words of Dame Rennie Fritchie will answer the noble Lord's question. I have already asked the Minister whether he and his fellow Ministers will examine the competence of the board of the hospital. The point made by Dame Rennie was that:
"Less successful candidates have been brought forward to replace those identified on merit".
She also stated that before 1997 there were fewer political appointments, and that those that were made were far more equally balanced between the two major parties. I prejudge nothing, but I suggest to the Minister that the Government would be wise to look again at that report. I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to make the appointment process less politically skewed in favour of the Labour Party.
However depressing the incident, the other sad part of this event is its wider message. Can the Minister confirm that much of the effort of trust boards up and down the country is still being directed towards meeting

1059
centrally-imposed waiting list targets, and that hospitals run the risk of being financially penalised if those targets are not met?
Is it also not the case that many hospitals are having to cut non-clinical services in order to find the efficiency savings laid down by Ministers centrally? If that is so, is it not central Government, as well as the management of the hospital, which should accept responsibility for what happened at Bedford Hospital? Are not the incidents also eloquent testimony to the view expressed by Sir Alan Langlands, the outgoing NHS Chief Executive who said last year at the NHS Confederation Conference:
"people don't have the space to reflect on the work they are doing. They don't have enough time—given the torrent of instructions from the centre—to work through the needs of their local communities and to manage them in a way that makes sense locally"?
I put it to the Minister that it is that syndrome, one that his party specifically pledged to banish, that lies behind the shocking events in Bedford.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I too welcome the Answer repeated by the Minister. Clearly, this has been a deplorable lapse of management at Bedford Hospital. However, the chief executive has done the honourable thing; he has resigned, whether willingly or not. It is worth expressing regret about his going. The hospital was, by repute, a good hospital. Indeed, in view of its track record, the incident is somewhat surprising. As a nation we expect proper respect for deceased patients and I welcome the steps taken by Nigel Crisp, Chief Executive of the NHS, and by the Secretary of State, in moving swiftly to deal with the situation in a particular hospital. However, I do not believe in "micro-management" by either House of Parliament. I certainly do not believe in mounting a case about the nature of the hospital trust in these circumstances, based on a pretty flimsy case.
The question which we as a House should be addressing is whether wider lessons can be learnt from what happened in the hospital. We know that guidelines are not always enforced and we want to know whether there is a failure to enforce them in other hospitals. Is this a one-off problem or does it apply to other hospitals? Are there adequate mortuary facilities across the country? What happens when mortuary facilities are not useable or when they are full? Are the proper reporting-up procedures set out in guidelines so that people responsible are automatically bound to report problems to the chief executive or the medical director? Do the guidelines need changing? Are they adequate in the circumstances of this case?
I note what the Minister says about resources and I accept it, but the question whether there is a resource issue remains. We have heard that a 2 per cent cash economy is expected within the NHS and want to know whether that is a factor in these circumstances?
1060
Finally, as regards the review of the work of hospitals conducted by the Commission for Health Improvement, can the Minister undertake that elements of it which relate to mortuary services and this case will be published?
4.31 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for joining me in expressing sympathy in relation to the events at Bedford Hospital, particularly about the lack of dignity and respect which were afforded to the bodies and to relatives of the patients who died in the hospital. I can confirm to the noble Earl that the chapel was used once between 9th and 11th January. It is my understanding that it was also used last winter and in previous winters.
The chief executive of the trust has "stepped down". Those are the words which are used. He is no longer carrying out the responsibilities and duties of the chief executive, but noble Lords will understand that contractual issues must be resolved by the trust board. The important point is that in practical terms he has stepped down as the accountable officer, the chief executive, of the trust.
The noble Earl raised a wider issue in relation to the performance of the trust board. From the preliminary results of the inquiry which the chief executive of the NHS received, there is no doubt that the core problem was a failure of management within the trust. However, ultimately the boards of trusts must accept responsibility for what occurs in their name. When we receive a fuller report from the director of the regional office we shall look at guidance and at the performance of the board as a whole.
Furthermore, I have no information or indication that the chairman of the trust board was asked I o resign. I understand that in the light of yesterday's review of all the events the chief executive decided it was appropriate to stand down from that position.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about board appointments. I must say to him that having spent 25 happy years representing the members of those boards, I do not believe that his government had an entirely impartial approach to their appointment. This Government have taken great care to ensure that people appointed are of the highest calibre. As regards the future, he will recall that we are in the process of establishing an independent appointments commission which will begin work in April this year. The whole appointments process will be undertaken by that commission. I fully accept that boards have a great leadership role to play in the NHS. We want to ensure that they do so effectively and we want the highest possible calibre of people to serve as chairs and non-executives.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the Government's priorities for the NHS and suggested that waiting list targets and other such initiatives were in some way distorting the management effort of NHS trusts. I absolutely refute that suggestion. I believe it is

1061
right that tackling waiting is an essential priority for the NHS and that it is right for the Government to identify that as one of their key priorities.
I am a great believer in an effective approach to efficiency savings where they produce savings brought about by efficiency rather than simply by taking money off budgets. Our focus is to ensure that we improve efficiency and we are making good progress in two areas. The first is in shared services in a whole health community where services can be shared between different NHS organisations. There are enormous benefits to be made in terms of quality and financial savings. The second area is procurement because more effective procurement can save large sums of money for the NHS. That is where we want the focus to be in efficiency savings.
I turn to the general issue raised by Sir Alan Langlands, former chief executive of the NHS whom I have always held in the highest regard. There is no doubt that since the NHS began there has been within it a balance, an argument and a tension between central direction and local autonomy. Again, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that from time to time his Government were not beyond sending out a circular or two to the health service.
The concept that we have developed of earned autonomy is the right one. We are saying to NHS organisations that those who are shown to be effective, those who meet the targets, and those who can show that they can provide an excellent service to the public will be given greater autonomy. Those trusts which are not doing so well can expect greater intervention. I am sure that that is the way to ensure that there is a consistent approach within the NHS while allowing sufficient freedom and autonomy at local level. That will enable the leaders of those organisations to develop them in the most effective way possible.
I believe that I have answered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the chief executive and micro-management. As regards the wider lessons to be learnt, following the incident at Bedford the chief executive wrote to every trust in the country reminding them of the guidance which had been issued on 23rd May 2000 in relation to mortuary facilities. It stated:
"NHS organisations should work with local councils to ensure that all services involved in the disposal of bodies, medical certification, registration, coroners, funeral directors and burial/cremation services are in place and adequate out-of-hour services are available. The NHS should ensure that mortuary capacity is adequate to meet peaks in winter deaths and take steps to provide additional facilities where this is likely to be required. Temporary mortuary facilities must meet minimum standards to respect patients' dignity. Refrigerated vehicles or trailers must not be used".
The chief executive has asked all trusts to confirm through regional offices that they are providing mortuary facilities in line with those guidelines, and it is my understanding that assurances have been received from all trusts. In view of that, it is clear that the Bedford incident is very much an isolated one.
1062
I do not believe that resources is an issue in this case. Bedford Hospital was able to purchase additional mortuary facilities a few weeks ago. The wider issue of whether this country has sufficient mortuary facilities must be seen in the context of our drive to improve the quality of services generally. Under the modernisation programme we have injected a considerable sum of money to help improve facilities. We have required regional offices to pull together the plans of every trust at the end of this financial year, from which we shall be able to see any shortcomings in pathology services and ensure that there is a strategy to improve them.
4.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, there are two chapels in Bedford hospital. Having heard the debate, one could easily gain the impression that the chapel for normal worship or contemplation by patients or families was the building used for the storage of the deceased. That is not so. For the purposes of a number of reports and the Statement in this House, it is more accurate to refer to "chapel of rest". The chapel of rest in Bedford, which I am informed is carpeted, is attached to the mortuary and is the place to which some people are taken if they wish to view the deceased.
All of us deplore a situation in which the deceased are not treated with dignity and respect. However, in my experience mortuary attendants do one of the most difficult jobs in the health service. They carry out their task with enormous care, well beyond the call of duty. One mortuary attendant whom I saw recently after a major accident acted well beyond the call of duty in caring not only for those who had been killed but the mourners and bereaved who came to visit the deceased. Let us ensure that those who do some of the most difficult jobs in our society, in particular mortuary attendants, are given the dignity and respect that they deserve, and that that message is sent to them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments. I confirm his observation about the chapel of rest. As he rightly observed, there are two chapels in Bedford Hospital. I also share his thoughts about the contribution made by mortuary staff who perform an invaluable role and ensure that the dead are accorded appropriate dignity and respect in these circumstances. One of the issues which arises in this particular case, where there was a clear management failure, is that often the contribution of staff as regards such services is not sufficiently recognised. When we have the results of the fuller inquiry into the events in Bedford perhaps there will be some important lessons to be learnt by NHS trusts as a whole in terms of oversight of mortuary services. One matter that I am sure we shall consider is the need to ensure that the staff involved receive the support required and are given sufficient guidance and instruction to know what to do if problems arise, as they clearly arose in relation to the doors of the Bedford mortuary.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we should not leave this matter without being sure as to the precise

1063
facts. The Minister told us that the chapel of rest at Bedford had been used for this purpose in the past and perhaps such a photograph might have been taken earlier. Can the Minister say whether the board knew that this was happening? Was the Minister aware of it? Does the Minister regret that he did not know at the time so that he could have done something about it? The shuffling off of responsibility onto chief executives, which under the new structures is happening more than ever before, is worrying. We want to ensure that responsibility is carried right up to Parliament when things go wrong.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, clearly when we receive the results of the fuller inquiry we shall know more about the events which occurred in Bedford Hospital. I can confirm that Ministers were unaware of what was happening in the hospital until the information came into the public domain. I assure the noble Baroness that if Ministers had become aware of it at an earlier stage they would have taken immediate action. It appears that the trust management, certainly the board, was not aware of this matter until a few days after the problem of the doors arose. In those circumstances, it is entirely appropriate that the chief executive, who is the accountable officer for the trust organisation, should accept responsibility for a clear failure in management action and procedures. However, there is more to be learnt. As a result of the inquiry we shall see whether further action needs to be taken in relation to the specific trust.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister able to say whether it is yet known who took the photographs which have caused such shock and dismay and how they got into the hands of the press?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as yet we do not know. I also regard that as a very serious matter. I assure the noble Lord that this matter is being fully investigated.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, it was said that management failure led to the proper resignation of Mr Williams. I am aware that Mr Williams is a committed NHS manager of long standing. I am concerned about the nature of the management failure which meant that resignation was appropriate. If the impression goes around that relatively minor management failures, for example a problem with doors—clearly, it was much more serious than that—led to the required resignation of chief executives, we shall undermine the morale of a key group in the NHS. Of course the NHS depends on doctors and nurses to deliver patient care, but without a very strong cadre of experienced managers who are committed to the NHS we shall not achieve the necessary results. Can the Minister comment on the precise nature of the management failure which was so serious as to demand the resignation of an experienced NHS manager of long standing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, despite the availability of a temporary mortuary purchased by the
1064
trust some weeks ago, bodies were stored on the floor of the chapel of rest in totally inappropriate conditions. The additional temporary facility was not being used because of a problem with the doors, not because no places were available. The problem had resulted in injury to a porter and at the beginning of last week there was concern as to whether for health and safety reasons the mortuary could be used. It was for that reason that the bodies were transferred to the chapel of rest.
It is clear from the preliminary investigation that there were no procedures in place to ensure that such shortcomings with the doors were dealt with immediately. Also there were concerns about record-keeping in relation to the mortuary. More generally, in a situation which for the people involved is a serious matter, the senior management of the trust were not aware of anything having occurred until Friday, which is four days after the preliminary decision took place. I believe that the inquiry will confirm that those are serious failures in management process and action. In those circumstances, it was the appropriate course of action for the chief executive to step aside.
Having said that, the noble Baroness and I share an interest in ensuring that we have the highest quality managers in the NHS who believe ghat the NHS is a good place to work and provides them with the right career development and support. Following on from the NHS Plan, we are developing plans for an NHS leadership centre which will have an important role to play in helping us to identify, nurture and support future NHS leaders. That is very important. I want to do that. I want to ensure that we recognise the enormous pressures which chief executives are under to deliver a challenging agenda. However, when management failures take place I believe that the chief executives and the boards of those organisations must accept responsibility.

Social Security Fraud Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I welcome the Social Security Fraud Bill as a major step forward in the ongoing campaign to eliminate fraud and error from the social security system. We spend over £100 billion each year on social security. It pays for pensions; helps people with illness and disability; and it helps families and those who are out of work. It is a huge amount of money. It is approximately one quarter of the entire government budget.
It is right that it is a huge amount of money because a properly funded social security system is the mark of a healthy redistributive democracy. The people of this country fund the social security system and they have every right to be angry at the estimation that each year £2 billion in benefits is stolen from that system. When the Government came to office in 1997 social security fraud was running at an estimated £2 billion to £4 billion a year. So, despite the scepticism of the noble

1065
Lord, Lord Higgins, some progress has been made to clamp down on those who defrauded the system in the intervening years.
The entire overseas development budget for the United Kingdom is £4 billion. Turning a blind eye to fraud on that scale is not acceptable. People who work and claim benefits illegally are not loveable rogues; it is theft from the public purse. As my noble friend the Minister stressed, it undermines confidence in the benefit system which is there to help people who are genuinely in need. A social security system that lacks credibility because it is seen as an easy touch is a system that becomes harder and harder for a progressive government to defend because of the huge sums of public money needed to maintain it properly in a healthy democracy. Therefore, great damage is done by fraudsters, not only to the current system but also to its future development.
My noble friend Lord Grabiner in his excellent report The Informal Economy was asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to investigate the problem of the hidden economy and to examine ways to move economic activity from illegitimate to legitimate businesses. He estimated that at any one time 120,000 people are fraudulently working and claiming benefits.
The Bill takes up many of the recommendations of my noble friend's report, including urging the Government to consider ways of using information from private sector and public sources as a cross check of the details provided by people. However, the Bill should be examined not only in the context of my noble friend's report but also in the light of the extensive consultation exercise conducted last summer by the Government, entitled Safeguarding Social Security: Getting the information we need.
Other measures that pre-date the Bill include the setting up of the benefit fraud hotline, the targeting fraud website, the framework which specifies minimum standards in verifying housing benefit and council tax benefit claims, and the Royal Mail's "do not redirect" powers to prevent fraudulent claimants using the Royal Mail's postal redirection arrangements to submit benefit claims from false addresses.
The main features of the Bill are to provide powers to reduce, and, in some cases, withdraw benefits from people convicted twice of benefit theft; to increase punishments for benefit fraud; to give new powers to obtain benefit fraud information from private and public sectors; to improve the direction of local authorities on benefit administration, which was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins; and it will also tighten the requirements to report changed circumstances that affect benefit entitlement.
The Bill is a serious move by the Government to get to grips with social security fraud after decades of neglect. It is part of a strategy to tighten up the system and make sure that from the first claim the right benefits go to the right people at the right time. To take up the point made
1066
by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we must always be vigilant about everyone's civil liberties in their interface with the social security system. I am sure that other noble Lords have also been contacted by groups such as Liberty which are concerned with this issue. But I believe that the Bill finds a balance between the fight against serious fraud and a claimant's right to privacy.
As my noble friend the Minister has stressed, no legitimate claimant has anything to fear from the Bill and should recognise the Bill's role in strengthening the system for us all in the future.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, this is an important and necessary Bill. All taxpayers, which means nearly everyone in this country, have suffered financially from people who have successfully and deliberately set out to defraud the system. As the Minister has said, the frauds have run into billions. She is quite right to try and stop the leak whereby much of our money is whipped away by a massive system of fraud.
I agree with everything she has said. But the words "war pensions" leapt to my eyes. Both war widows and war pensioners tend to be of a different generation from those to whom organised fraud is a way of life. No one is perfect in this world and there may just be the odd case here and there, but I will not have my splendid long-suffering uncomplaining ladies harried for the sake of a few possible rotten apples.
Mr Tom House, who is head of pensions for the Royal British Legion, told me that he has never come across any deliberately fraudulent cases from war widows or war pensioners in the 10 years he has worked there. During that time, he has dealt with 60,000 cases, and he currently has 8,000 to 10,000 war widows on his books. None of them has ever tried to commit fraud.
One of my ladies, who is a regional organiser, allowed a friend of hers who worked on an oil rig to park his car by her house while he was away. Some local informer reported that there was a strange man's car parked by her house for long periods. The pensions officials came to the conclusion that she was cohabiting while still illegally and fraudulently drawing her pension, and it was arbitrarily withdrawn. She herself had to bring a case and prove what in fact had happened; which she did successfully, and had her pension reinstated to the time when it had been removed. But, as your Lordships can imagine, it was all very upsetting for her. Is this the way to treat people who have sacrificed their loved ones for the good of their country? Are we living in a Nazi or communist state of secret informers? I sincerely hope not.
I do hope that the money saved from peering at and spying on innocent ladies and war pensioners will be better spent elsewhere. I very much hope that my noble friend will remove the words "war pensions" from the face of the Bill.
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the extent of social security fraud is an unacceptable burden on the British taxpayer and we should support any measures designed to reduce it. As the Minister said, the Government have set a target in their public service agreements to reduce the amount of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance. That fraud and error alone are estimated to be running at more than £1.3 billion a year, a staggering 8.4 per cent of programme expenditure. We might think that the targets, which were described by the Minister as challenging—merely to halve that amount and taking until March 2006 to do it—are too soft, but I am sure we all agree that the amount must be significantly reduced. Another £600 million, or possibly more, of housing benefit is also thought to be lost, taking the total to more than £2 billion or even more. That £2 billion could buy 18 or 20 new NHS hospitals every year or it could be used to start to reverse the increasing tax burdens imposed by this Government.
There is no magic way to avoid fraud or error. One of the arts of business success is risk management. Businesses have to identify the key risks that affect their operations, including risks from fraud and error. They must install controls to eliminate or minimise those risks and then check that those controls are working. But 8.4 per cent of programme expenditure "lost" certainly indicates that something has to be done to improve the DSS's risk management.
We are told in the Explanatory Notes that the Bill will capture between £200 million and £400 million of benefit savings. That still leaves unaffected at least £1.6 billion of losses. It is therefore a relatively modest Bill in the whole scheme of things and I look forward in due course to hearing of more significant measures to reduce the losses.
I turn to the Bill itself. There are significant new powers for the DSS and others to obtain information. From my experience as an accountant, I am sure that effective controls to minimise losses due to fraud or error do need information. In principle, therefore, I support those parts of the Bill which give additional powers to the DSS and others to obtain information. However, I have significant reservations about the obligations that that will place on others. Clause 1 has a significant list of organisations from which those administering benefits will be able to demand information. That list can be added to by an order made under subsection (3) of Clause 1.
When we look at Clause 3, which deals with the payments to be made for this information, we can see how one-sided the trade will be. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to require or authorise,
"in such cases as he thinks fit, the making of such payments as he considers appropriate".
That is a very wide discretion.
This Bill is yet another piece of legislation creating burdens on businesses which have already experienced year-on-year increases in regulatory burdens under this Government. The provision of information will be a burde—it is not cost free. We may decide, reluctantly,
1068
that it is appropriate to impose this additional burden, but we should at least seek to mitigate the impact on the businesses affected by placing a positive obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that he compensates those businesses for the costs that they will incur as a result of these new powers being exercised.
I note that the Government's own estimate, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, of the additional costs falling on businesses is in the range of £2.5 million to £7.6 million. I was surprised at the modesty of that figure and tried to look at the regulatory impact assessment to understand the assumptions that the Government have made. Paragraph 190 of the Explanatory Notes refer us to the DSS's website, www.dss.gov.uk, but I have to tell the Minister that as of yesterday morning I could find no trace of the regulatory impact assessment on that website, despite several increasingly complicated searches. I believe that the basis for those estimates needs the most careful scrutiny and I know that many organisations have expressed concerns about the potential costs. Whatever the truth about the costs imposed by the Bill, they are certainly greater than zero. I hope that the Government will think again about creating a positive obligation to recompense those on whom they will be imposing these new information requirements.
I hope that the Government will also look again at the list of potential beneficiaries set out in Clause 3, to which my noble friend Lord Higgins has already referred. It seems to me that there should be an alignment between those on whom the burdens may be placed by Clause 1 and those who should be recompensed under Clause 3. At present there is no such alignment. I cannot see why each of the categories of potential information providers should not in equity have the costs of these additional burdens met by the DSS or others. Why is it that banks and insurance companies are less deserving than, say, telecommunications providers?
One other aspect of the Bill concerns me; namely, the provisions in Clause 14 for fixed penalties to be offered to allegedly colluding employers in lieu of prosecution. I have seen the operation of something like that in the form of consent orders which are a part of the disciplinary procedures of my professional institute, the Institute of Chartered Accountants. That experience does not encourage me. Although introduced in the name of efficient administration, there is no doubt that it is seen by many chartered accountants as a weapon with which to beat them. The choice is pay up or go through the time-consuming, expensive and, probably worst of all, emotionally draining experience of the full disciplinary process. They generally pay up, guilty or not, so that they can get on with running their businesses.
I have a very real fear that this new power will be used to beat businesses, and especially small businesses. They will be treated as guilty until proven innocent. If a business believes that it has not committed an offence, it can choose to pay up or go to court to argue its case. The latter will be expensive and time consuming. It will certainly divert attention from running the business. In practical terms, the answer may well be to pay up. That

1069
might be good for raising revenue, but it is not good if innocent parties are coerced into paying fines in order to avoid the much worse prospect of a court case, which will cost them more in business terms even if they are successful in proving their innocence.
What is there in the Bill to ensure that Clause 14 will be operated reasonably? What is there to restrain the excessive zeal of DSS officials or others in their search for benefit fraud? Should not there be a kind of filtering mechanism to ensure that the Secretary of State makes the decision to offer a penalty only in reasonable and genuine cases?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wonder whether it would help the noble Baroness if I told her that the Federation of Small Businesses stands behind these proposals. The notion that we are taking blackmail money so that businesses can avoid court cases ought not to be proposed in this way.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall leave the point. All that I am saying is that there should be included within the legislation a counterbalance to ensure that the scales are not automatically tipped against business; otherwise this provision has the potential to be used as a severe power against small businessmen who have relatively few resources with which to defend themselves.
Tackling fraud and error in the administration of public finances is a positive duty of all governments. We should not resist sensible measures designed to make that task more effective. I look forward to discussing the Bill in more detail in Committee and I hope that the Government will ensure that their understandable desire to eliminate fraud will not result in an undesirable increase in burdens on business.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, the purpose of the Bill is to introduce powers which would significantly improve the ability of the relevant departments of government to tackle benefit fraud and error. There are good grounds for believing that the amounts of money involved are substantial and that the increased powers which are proposed would, in a balanced way, have the effect of deterring fraudulent behaviour, while at the same time enhancing the detection rates for both fraud and error.
I should like to address three particular aspects of the Bill. However, before doing so I should like to mention a real life example which I came across when preparing my report for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My understanding is that this is a typical example. It illustrates some of the problems at which the Bill is directed. Furthermore, I think that the example will assist noble Lords in the process of developing a feel for the practical application of this proposed legislation.
What happened was this. DSS investigators began a surveillance exercise in relation to an individual whom they suspected of working and fraudulently claiming benefit. At around six o'clock in the evening, they
1070
followed him to what turned out to be one or other of half a dozen restaurants in the West End of London in or near Leicester Square. In the event, he turned out to be one of around 30 people, all of whom were obviously working for a single employer in the restaurant business. As the investigation developed, it became clear that many of the individuals were here illegally. They were not registered for PAYE and were paid in cash. Most, if not all of them, were claiming benefits. This was a classic example of collusion on the part of the employer, who was able to take account of the amount of benefits being received by his employees when deciding how much money he would pay them on top in the form of wages.
When challenged, the employer had the effrontery to show the investigators a software program on his office computer system which purported to confirm that all the people who worked for him were his employees and that he was properly accounting for PAYE and NICs to the Inland Revenue. The software was pure fabrication and had been designed to satisfy the possibility of a very cursory inquiry.
In my opinion, these facts reveal a shocking state of affairs. Here we have an employer who is obviously not disclosing his full profits, which means that corporation tax or business revenue tax is lost. VAT is lost. The VAT point is especially unattractive because it will have been collected by the employer through the food bills paid by his customers, but the proper amounts never reached Customs and Excise.
The employees were working and claiming benefit, which is simply fraudulent. The employees were also being exploited. They fell through the basic floor of rights provided by our employment protection legislation, which is designed to give them all the advantages which are associated with lawful employment, including the right to redundancy benefits, the right not to be unfairly dismissed, the minimum wage legislation and a whole host of other elements. In addition, no national insurance contributions were being made in respect of these people.
I was surprised to discover that the penalty imposed on the employer was a paltry fine of £750. That is not because the sentencing court made a hash of it. It is because the employer, who pleaded guilty, was charged only with a single, sample offence of making a false statement to DSS officials.
A few points can be made about this example. First, the employer was at the centre of the web. Without the collusive employer, this type of case could not happen. Secondly, the activities have a cross-departmental impact. The facts would be of interest to the Treasury, Customs and Excise, the DfEE, including the Employment Service, the DSS and the Benefits Agency, the Inland Revenue and the Home Office. It brings out the importance of ensuring, so far as is possible, that this problem is examined at a focal point at the departmental end of the story, otherwise it may fall between departments. It also emphasises the need to share information, which is an important part of the record-keeping and detection process.

1071
Thirdly, I believe that this example—there are plenty more—should give rise to concern in all parts of the House. I believe that every noble Lord who has spoken so far has been in agreement on this point. It seems to me that this is not at all a party political issue, but rather that honest citizens are rightly fed up with fraudsters and fiddlers who get a free ride and, for the most part, are perceived to be getting away with it.
Fourthly, it is also a matter of great concern that many people and their dependent families who get into this murky world find themselves unable to obtain regular, lawful employment simply because they are not able to provide any employment track record to a potential genuine employer.
I should now like to say a few words about three aspects of the Bill; namely, the proposal to increase the powers of obtaining and sharing information, the proposal to disqualify for a period of 13 weeks persons convicted of two benefits offences in the space of three years and the separate proposal to introduce an administrative penalty as an alternative to criminal prosecution.
As regards the first point, Clause 1 of the Bill would give increased powers to obtain information from the private sector, such as banks and credit card companies about particular individuals. The fraudulent activity at which the Bill is aimed necessarily involves someone telling a lie; for example, as regards whether they have a job, whether they have savings, whether they have a partner who is working, where they live, who they are or whether they are in education.
These proposed powers are designed to enable fraud investigators to get to the truth. They will provide an independent method of checking or verifying the facts which have already been provided by the claimant. This type of legislation must obviously comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Act. In particular, the new powers must be compatible with Article 8 of the convention. This is always a question of balance, fairness and common sense. Every citizen has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. The convention does, however, permit that right to be interfered with in an appropriate case.
In order to be justified, Article 8 requires that the interference must be in accordance with the law. It must also be necessary in the sense that it is the minimum interference necessary having regard to the economic well-being of the country, or the need to prevent crime, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. I have, in effect, summarised the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 8.
The legal basis for the interference would, of course, be the Bill, if and when it becomes law. It seems to me that all of the other justifications to which I have referred apply here. My noble friend the Minister has given a number of real life examples, in addition to the one that I have mentioned, which emphasise the seriousness of these matters and the need for this legislation. The Bill contains provisions which will, I believe, ensure fair play and make a reasonable balance
1072
between, on the one hand, the protection of private liberty and, on the other hand, the protection of the public purse.
First, these new powers are to be conferred only on an authorised officer, which means a DSS fraud investigator acting with the authority of the Secretary of State. Secondly, information about specific individuals can be sought only where there are reasonable grounds for believing any of the matters which are specified in subsection (2C) on page 2 of the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, adverted to those provisions in his speech.
The expression "reasonable grounds for believing" is a well-established formula. It means that suspicious or discriminatory motives, such as sex, race, colour, language, religion and all the other matters listed in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, could never justify the use of these powers.
In regard to that issue, I should like to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He told the House that the British Bankers Association had expressed concern that the provisions may be used for the purpose of fishing expeditions. If they were so used, that would be entirely inappropriate and unlawful.
We shall obviously be studying the detail at later stages of the Bill, but it is worth making reference to the ground given in paragraph (c)—the provision specifically referred to by the noble Earl—which concerns a person belonging to any description of persons who are more likely than others to fall within the earlier paragraphs (a) or (b).
The pressure group Liberty, in its Second Reading briefing paper, has expressed some concern about this provision. Perhaps I may say that I do not, with respect, accept Liberty's substantive criticism, which is that this provision would be used in a way which is inconsistent with Article 14. For the reasons that I have already given, I do not believe that there is any justification for this expressed concern.
The justification for paragraph (c)—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. No one is alleging that there is any ministerial intent to abuse these powers in this way, but does the noble Lord concede that there is a real Actonian danger that they may nevertheless be so abused?
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, in a sense, that is true whenever powers are granted. One has to have regard to the fact that there is a possibility that powers, when granted, may be abused. However, if the powers are abused, it is to be hoped that that will become apparent and plain and that the appropriate remedies will be made available, either through the process of judicial review or the appeal process to be provided in this legislation. The concern that such an abuse may happen is not a justification for not introducing the provision.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord concede that some powers lead people into more temptation than others?
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, of course they do, as we know. Even then I would suggest that that does not

1073
provide justification for not assuming the powers and getting on with the job that needs to be undertaken. It is simply not good enough to say that it is too difficult a problem or that there are people out there who may behave in an improper fashion. That is not a good enough answer to the problem. We have to take a bit of courage and have a bit of conviction here because we are confronted with a serious problem.
Perhaps I may now say something about the justification for paragraph (c) and give a couple of practical examples. Investigators might reasonably take the view that someone who has previously committed benefit fraud is more likely to be fraudulent again. Another example might be the discovery of the fact that someone regularly advertises some business activity in a telephone box or in a newsagent's window but pays no tax or VAT and may or may not be claiming benefit at the same time. I suggest that it is reasonable and necessary to have these powers if we want to deal with the problem.
The third important protection is the one mentioned by my noble friend the Minister. There will be a published code of practice which will put some flesh on these provisions and make them precise and accessible. Also the provision will not, as I understand it, be operated until after the code of practice has been published.
Perhaps I may now turn to the subject of data protection. This is an aspect of the debate about human rights under the Bill. I suspect that it will be readily accepted on all sides that the benefit system is under attack from the opportunist and from organised fraudsters. On that assumption, a judgment has to be made as to the extent to which it is necessary for the prevention and detection of crime or the collection of taxes to have these powers. For the reasons that I have already mentioned, I would suggest that there is a pressing need for them.
In the context of data protection, perhaps I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—with which I respectfully agree—about the concerns of individuals whose records may be the subject of investigation under the Clause 1 powers. When I was preparing my report, I discussed this matter with one of the principal providers in this territory. I learnt that it is possible, or would be possible, for DSS investigators, for example, to cause inquiries to be made into data knowledge without leaving a footprint. A subsequent inquiry about a particular person by a third party—for example, a supplier of credit to the individual—would not have revealed to him the fact that the DSS had trodden in that territory previously. There is a real prospect of sound protection of the integrity of the position of an individual who may be the subject of an inquiry along these lines. Such inquiries may be made without damaging that person. Undoubtedly it would damage that person if a subsequent provider of credit were to discover that such an investigation had been made.
Perhaps I may next turn to Clauses 6 to 12 of the Bill, which contain the proposal that persons convicted of two benefit offences in the space of three years should be
1074
disqualified from receiving benefits for a period of 13 weeks. I dealt with this point in paragraphs 7.32 to 7.36 of my report.
My understanding is that this approach is used in some parts of the United States and Canada. The approach adopted in the Bill is consistent with the current rules for jobseekers' allowance, whereby benefit payments can be withheld for a specific period if jobseekers unreasonably cause or prolong their unemployment—for example, if they leave or refuse to take a job without good reasons. The sanction period is between one and 26 weeks under those rules. It is obviously necessary to have safeguards in order to protect the innocent and the vulnerable. We shall, no doubt, examine the details at later stages of the Bill, but there are hardship provisions in the Bill.
The point that I would emphasise is that these disqualification provisions are intended primarily to operate as a deterrent. The hope must be that the legislation will have a full public impact and that would-be wrongdoers will be encouraged into the legitimate economy. The problem is that under the present regime there is no disincentive to re-offend. That is why these provisions are so important.
The third point that I want to highlight is the new proposed procedure that would enable the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, an authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit to agree a civil penalty with an employer who has, for example, facilitated the commission of a benefit offence by a relevant employee.
The pre-condition for the new procedure is that there are grounds for bringing proceedings against the colluding employer but, by agreement between the parties, an administrative penalty is exacted and there are no criminal proceedings. This is a valuable addition to the investigators' armoury. This machinery is likely to lead to a greater awareness among employers as to the risks they run and, it is to be hoped, an increased respect for the law. The new procedure would bring the point home to employers without the need to invoke the full force of a criminal prosecution. It is also likely to result in cost/benefit efficiencies. I do not accept the points made on this aspect of the matter by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, whatever may be the motivation of individual accountants when confronted with complaints about their behaviour. I do not think that we are in that territory. The purpose of this piece of machinery is to impose the quality of the performance and to bring home to people, without the need for full-blown criminal proceedings, that what they are doing is wrongful activity.
In conclusion, perhaps I may mention a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on the question of amnesties. I examined the idea carefully, because I was initially very attracted by it. Indeed, when I was asked by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into the question, he, too, was initially attracted by the thought. I do not think that I am telling any tales out of school.
However, having examined some American research—the idea has been tried in a number of states—I discovered, first, that it was usually

1075
introduced around election time with a view to securing the right result from electors, there being apparently quite a large number of people who fell into this category, each of whom had a vote—and who may even have had the ability and the strength to press the button hard enough to produce a valid and admissible vote! But also, the impact in America was that this was treated simply as a "free lunch". The expectation was that one amnesty would simply be followed by another. Such a scheme was also rather expensive to administer. So at the end of the day it did not seem an appropriate way forward. There is also some evidence that this approach was tried, and failed, in Italy—but I say that from memory, going back 18 months or so. I certainly examined the idea but did not think it appropriate to recommend it. Indeed, at the end of the day I am fairly strongly opposed to such an idea, but it was given careful consideration.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence after that masterly exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. I noted particularly his vivid example of the restaurateur who was the centre of a web of fraud and deception. But I am concerned to know how the figure of approximately £2 billion of loss—which is obviously a matter of considerable concern—could possibly be arrived at, given that in the nature of things the fraud has been undetected. I presume that there must be some method of so doing. I should be grateful if the Minister could either indicate that in replying or, if there is no time for such a luxury, let me know subsequently.
I rather regret one absence from the Bill, because it is something of a hobby-horse of mine. I refer to the absence of any reference to identity cards. They would be a comparatively simple, easy way of ensuring people's identity. They have a value far beyond anything to do with fraud. If they were extended to everyone, they would have all manner of advantages.
I suspect that the Minister will tell me that this goes far beyond the scope of the Bill. That illustrates perfectly the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the disadvantages of single-issue Bills when it is not possible to take wider issues into account. That is also true of the question of preventing loss through error as opposed to fraud. There would be far less error if the social security system were considerably simpler than it is now. Again, the noble Earl's dictum applies; that goes beyond the scope of the Bill. It means that we set out somewhat "hobbled".
Perhaps I may turn to the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for war pensioners and war widows. I share that concern, as vice-president of the War Widows Association, of which the noble Baroness is president. I strongly suspect that there will be no way in which the Minister will remove from the Long Title the reference to war pensions. I hope that at the very least there will be considerable delicacy in dealing with these matters.
The pressure that will be put on businesses has been pointed out by several speakers. However, no one has mentioned the issue of small businesses. The pressures
1076
on them if they are required to provide information will be even greater than it will on big business, which no doubt has the facilities to deal with the matter. It seems to me that likely fraudsters will be employed by small businesses rather than large businesses, because they can pass in and out of employment regularly and simply. I worry about that point in relation to small businesses.
I also note the confident statement in the Explanatory Notes that the Bill will have no impact on charities and voluntary organisations. That seems a somewhat sweeping assertion. I am not sure what the basis for it is, given that many organisations and charities employ people to work professionally for them. I should be interested to know why the statement was made and how confident we can he. Many voluntary organisations and charities work on a shoestring and may find it difficult to comply without interfering with their genuine, excellent work.
I turn now to the memorandum of the British Bankers' Association. It contains many questions and worries which need to be dealt with. I need not tell the Minister about the devil being in the detail, hearing in mind her responsibility for the Child Support Agency, a brilliant idea which nearly came to grief and ca used considerable aggravation because of the way the detail was worked out. I take it seriously when the British Bankers' Association writes to us with its worries. Perhaps I may mention one or two of them.
The association states the importance of having one common channel of approach to the bank from the various organisations such as the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise, and that the bank should have one particular department or particular people to deal with the matter. It mentions its current, very real worry that even at present some junior bank staff are being approached by authorities such as the Inland Revenue with requests for information. It also presents a security risk in that the wrong information could get out or could get into the wrong hands. The point must be addressed carefully.
The association also raises other questions. Will the provision apply only to personal accounts, or will it be extended to business accounts and single trader accounts? And what about joint accounts? In terms of human rights, that seems to me to be particularly important. If only one of the holders of a joint account is under suspicion, while the other is not, what about the rights of the person who is not under suspicion? Presumably, all the information will have to be given if a proper assessment is to be made of the situation.
Finally, there is the question of electronic banking, which seems to be becoming increasingly important. I am not sure what the position is in relation to the Bill, but I should be grateful if we could be given some indication of what is likely to be an ever-increasing method of banking.
As I say, I have some reservations about the Bill, although no one could quarrel with the intentions behind it. There seems to me to be a number of concerns that I hope we shall consider in more detail during the Committee stage. In the meantime, one cannot but give the Bill a welcome, albeit one tempered by reservations.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I, too, broadly welcome the Bill because it tries to tackle an important issue. I have lived in this country for 35 years and no year has passed without some government Minister saying, "We must tackle benefit fraud; it is a very serious problem". The number of cases continues to increase. I know exactly how to estimate, though not actually calculate, such numbers. It is not an easy task, but if you have at least some observed fraud you can make an estimate of the unobserved fraud. There are sophisticated techniques in that respect and the people who invented them got the "Nobel prize" in the latest round of economical prizes. I should add that I used to teach these things.
If a certain amount of money is being defrauded it is always a question of knowing the exact number of cases involved. Of course, we have a margin of error around it. However, one way to predict who might cheat is basically to look at what we call "the characteristics"—that is, the personal characteristics of those involved. For example, we may have a sample of people who have cheated which will enable us to classify them in terms of, say, sex, race, occupation, and so on. That is how we can increase the chance of predicting who is likely to cheat. After all, this is information. Incidentally, that is done without any intention of violating any human rights Act. From this information we can assess the probability of someone cheating by considering, for example, whether he is single, the nature of his occupation, or whether or not he is black, as the case may be. Indeed, hundreds of articles have been written on the subject.
That brings me to my major worry about the Bill; namely, the new subsection (2C) to Section 109B of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as set out in Clause 1. I believe that we are all worried about this subsection. I shall begin with the wording that worries me the most which is to be found in subsection (2C)(c). That paragraph refers to,
"a person belonging to any description of persons who are more likely than others to fall within paragraph (a) or (b) above".
I know of no way of implementing that provision without using some characteristic profile of that class of persons. When we refer to a class of persons, it is very hard not to start making judgments about Rastafarians, builders, homosexuals—or even fat professors, or whatever!
There is a great danger here. I am sure that people will undertake such assessments with great care, but once consideration is given to,
"persons who are more likely [to offend] than others",
if they belong to a particular set of persons, that can only be defined by some or other element that will violate Article 14 of the convention on human rights. I am not a lawyer; I am an econometrician. But I believe that people will make such statements without meaning to offend.
I am also worried about paragraphs (a) and (b) of this new subsection, especially where reference is made to a person who "is likely to contravene" or "likely to commit" fraud. Again, this is a matter of forecasting the probability that someone is likely to offend, as
1078
happened under the football hooligans Bill; and that upset me very much. That legislation gave the police the power to stop someone from travelling, not because he had committed an offence but because he was thought likely to commit an offence abroad. I remember sitting in the Chamber until five o'clock in the morning while we deliberated that Bill. As I say, I was very upset by that provision but, not being a lawyer, there was not very much that I could do about it.
There is a creeping tendency to presume guilt, or to presume the likelihood of committing an offence, before a person has committed an offence. It happened under the football hooligans Bill and it is happening here under this Bill. When we considered the RIP Bill—I always forget what is stands for, though perhaps it was the "repression of internet providers", or whatever—that legislation contained some gross invasions of privacy, which were allowed to stand. It is a worrying tendency.
I know that my noble friend the Minister is a sensitive person and that the Government are equally sensitive. I do not doubt that everyone involved in this is very good. But things happen further down the line. I am especially worried about the leaking of information, whereby matters that are supposed to be confidential are leaked to tabloid newspapers for money. Therefore, even if the intention of the legislation is not to invade people's privacy, we can end up doing so.
Obviously, if someone has contravened or is contravening relevant social security legislation, there is absolutely no problem. Indeed, I have in mind the blood-curdling tales that my noble friend described earlier. I entirely agree with her: those cases relate to evil people and they must be punished. That is not my concern. However, we are dealing with the lower depths of society, as it were, where the criminals and the poor are very hard to distinguish because they are mixed together. It is easy for poorer people to be caught. I am not worried about the fact that race may be an element in this respect, but poor people very often fall foul of the law and are unable to defend themselves.
I am also seriously worried about paragraph (d) of new subsection (2C) which says that someone who,
"is a member of the family of a person falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c)",
could be investigated. Because of the way that "the family" is defined so as to include people who are separated—indeed, the case of domestic violence was mentioned whereby a man could shop his wife, whom he has beaten up and who has subsequently left him—we could have considerable problems regarding the likelihood of a gross miscarriage of justice. I put it no stronger.
Those are my main worries about the Bill. On the whole, I believe that it will do its job. However, while doing its job, I believe that it will give the Secretary of State slightly more powers than are strictly necessary. I was heartened when my noble friend told us about the success that the department is having at present at capturing some of the fraudsters without such legislation. I believe that we ought to continue along

1079
those lines. If this Bill is to be enacted, we really ought to consider most carefully the excessive powers that it is proposed to give to the Secretary of State.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to wind up the debate for the Opposition after what has been a characteristically well informed debate. We have heard some powerful speeches this afternoon. I agree with my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, on the excellence of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner. Like my noble friend, I found that document very readable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, that honest citizens are fed up with benefit fraud. We on these Benches are grateful to him for his clarification of his views on amnesties. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and my noble friend Lady Fookes both mentioned war widows. I shall return later to that subject.
My noble friend Lady Noakes made a powerful speech. I very much hope that she will pursue her arguments, particularly with regard to the burdens on businesses, at later stages of the Bill.
The Minister told the House that benefit fraud costs taxpayers at least £2 billion per annum and probably more. My noble friend Lord Higgins mentioned an estimate of —7 billion. We all agree that it is far too high. We on these Benches therefore wholeheartedly endorse the principle of tackling benefit fraud in a fair, comprehensive and effective manner.
Where we depart from the Government's approach and, indeed, from major aspects of the Bill, is that their proposals are, yet again, long on rhetoric and short on action. This is, after all, the 43rd, 44th or 45th government announcement on the subject of fraud, yet fraud has got worse. Why will the 45th announcement make any difference? Headline statements are no substitute for genuine reform.
What we need is benefit simplification, not complication, particularly over housing benefit. I have here the 85 regulatory changes to housing benefit dumped on local authorities since May 1997. The Bill does nothing to simplify the complex benefits system. Few DSS officials, excepting, of course, the ones present tonight, understand the system in any detail. According to the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the form for the working families' tax credit is so complicated that fewer than one in 10 tax inspectors are capable of filling it in correctly.
A serious attack on fraud would require not only simplification and more resources, as my noble friend Lord Higgins said, but also restructuring of the benefits system. The CAB is critical that the Bill does not address errors in payment of benefit, or areas where reforms to the benefits system could significantly improve the accuracy of benefit payments.
The Bill contains many subjects which we shall want to scrutinise carefully in Committee and at later stages of the Bill. I shall confine my remarks to three specific areas of concern. These are the impact on business; the human rights aspects of the Bill; and war widows.
1080
The Bill contains sweeping powers to compel various private sector businesses to share information with both central and local government agencies involved in tackling benefit fraud. Again, the Government continue their tendency to place much of the burden of responsibility on businesses, along with the associated costs.
If relevant information may be obtained securely, without threatening innocent people's privacy and with limited cost to business, we on these Benches welcome that approach. We are concerned, however, that the Government's estimates do not adequately state the situation. In its submission to the Bill, the credit industry fraud avoidance system reported that one High Street bank would require 38 additional staff to handle the labour-intensive production of large volumes of information by DSS staff at a total cost of £14 million per annum. Another bank estimates a requirement for 20 staff.
This concern is, indeed, exacerbated by the total discretion that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai—on whether costs will be reimbursed at a commercial rate. Can the Minister reassure the House that there has been a meaningful dialogue between the Government and those companies named in the Bill to ensure that the figures anticipated by the Government are credible and agreed by both parties?
Several noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lady Fookes, mentioned the BBA concerns. As the Bill is currently drafted, any DSS officer, as authorised by the Secretary of State, can approach a bank for information about an individual. This is very different from existing processes. The Government say that there will be a code of practice governing the DSS's actions. The BBA would prefer, particularly as such a code has not yet been drawn up, that safeguards are written on the face of the Bill. It is also concerned about the wide definition of people about whom a DSS officer can require information. This targets groups of people rather than individuals about whom there are real grounds for suspicion. A benefit claimant could be deemed likely to commit a benefit offence, effectively stigmatising an entire group. In our view, bank information should be disclosed only where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting fraud.
The Scottish Law Society is concerned that, if granted, these powers could be used routinely and arbitrarily in circumstances where there is no reasonable suspicion of fraudulent activity or criminal conduct. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, were both concerned that the Bill will allow investigators to investigate people on the basis of their ethnic origin. That concern is shared by Liberty, which points out that the Bill has the potential to be harmful to race relations both because it will allow people to feel that they may be targeted because of their ethnicity and because it will encourage investigators to see ethnicity as a relevant factor in their investigations.
The BBA also argues that banks should be protected against inadvertently disclosing information as a result of inadequate or incorrect identifying data supplied by

1081
the DSS. The electricity suppliers are concerned at the potential costs and data protection aspects of giving online access to information they hold. Dealing with a huge number of requests for information from both the DSS and local authorities—they expect over 90,000 each year—imposes substantial costs on them. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make payments to utility companies for the bulk information they provide. The Secretary of State may make payments where he considers that reasonable, but need not do so if he thinks that it is not appropriate. That situation is clearly unsatisfactory.
In practical terms, costs to the electricity suppliers will also be affected by the codes of practice yet to be agreed. It is essential that DSS officers ensure the minimum possible duplication of effort in requests for information both from within the DSS and between the DSS and local authorities.
The telecoms sector alone—this does not include the Internet service providers—expects to receive about 90,000 inquiries each year. The time period during which they store historic data is crucial. Archiving and retrieval costs are very high and the potential threat of the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts is forcing some mobile phone companies to destroy data over six months old.
The loss of that data will have a negative effect on investigations into benefit fraud. It is surely the case that the sheer backlog of work and the time necessary to complete investigations will mean that proposed data will need to be stored for a number of years. Will the Minister tell the House how long the Government believe that the necessary information should be stored?
Furthermore, what dialogue has taken place with the information providers cited in the Bill to meet these requirements? What recompense will the Government make so that they are able to comply with the set-up and ongoing costs of prolonged data warehousing?
The Bill would allow an agency to identify any individual employee as the person to whom it sends a request for information, thus subjecting that person to possible criminal sanctions and a fine of £1,000 plus £40 each day if he or she does not comply. Is that really the Government's intention, particularly if an individual is not in a position to comply?
As regards the telecommunication and ISP companies, to whom do the Government envisage that requests will be made? It will surely speed up and assist the investigatory process if there are certain, named managers to whom requests can be made. We also suggest that there should be a single point of contact—the authorised officer within the DSS or local authority—at a suitably senior level to provide the necessary validation and authorisation of all information requests.
The powers given to benefit fraud inspectors are becoming more and more powerful. If that continues, they will soon have more powers than the police. What concrete provisions will the Government make to ensure that there are stringent safeguards ensuring that
1082
the required level of training is established and maintained? A quick glance at the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reveals how under-resourced, under-trained and overburdened are the local authority staff who try to administer benefits. Indeed, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate annual report said that,
"in 93 per cent of our inspections we found inadequate staff training".
Among those to whom I have spoken, there is also considerable anxiety that much benefit fraud occurs with the complicity of DSS staff. The survey, Staff Attitudes to Security in the Benefits Agency, revealed the existence of "sleeper rings" where an official joins the agency intending to commit fraud. Once he understands working methods, he defrauds the system with an outside accomplice.
Until the Government can demonstrate that the information they will compel the private sector to provide will be secure, and that the personnel and financial costs will not be excessive, we shall have serious reservations about their approach.
A number of points relate to the human rights aspects of the Bill. The DSS wishes to have extra powers to gain access to various private sector sources. It is, therefore, essential that the Government confirm that the Bill falls within Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Data Protection Commissioner and Liberty take the view that the Bill does not. Will the Minister confirm that there is no inconsistency? The Data Protection Commissioner has made a number of important observations. Have the Government considered those points, or ignored them?
Having access to highly sensitive personal information, the benefits agencies must ensure that it is used only for the specified purposes of investigation and prosecution. To that end, we regard it as important for there to be a defined code of conduct and stringent guidelines in place for the access and use of information. If those guidelines are breached and data is accidentally or deliberately disclosed, we believe that the perpetrators should be dealt with with the utmost severity.
The Minister mentioned the improper use of information with other countries. Will provisions be put in place to ensure that any misuse of information about UK citizens will result in reciprocity being revoked? Will the DSS ensure that countries with which information is exchanged will have the same regard to human rights and data protection as the UK?
The Minister touched briefly on Scotland. The Scottish Law Society points out that Clauses 13 and 14 appear to have been drafted without taking account of the distinct prosecution system in Scotland. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify how the Government envisage the Bill operating in Scotland.
I turn now to the inclusion of war pensions in the Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, I have spoken to the Royal British legion, SSAFA and the War Widows Association. All are concerned and surprised that the Government have yet again made those bodies such a high profile target. The head of the pensions

1083
department at the Royal British Legion told me that he has never seen a single case that would indicate any form of fraud—not a sniff of it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to overstate the position. I take issue with the phrase that we have made them a "high profile target". We have merely not omitted them from the list of all the other recipients of benefits from whom proper controls, inspections and information are required.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point. However, the numbers must be minuscule. Perhaps the Minister can give the House an idea of the number of fraudulent war widows. On the War Pensions Agency's own figures, from June to December 2000 there was evidence of abuse in only 114 cases from around 100,000 pensioners in receipt of a war pension.
I reiterate that we on these Benches are fully behind real attempts to tackle the growing menace of benefit fraud. With each year such fraud is costing hard-pressed British taxpayers many billions of pounds which could be used elsewhere. This diverts much needed resources and attention from those who are most in need. What indicators of success, therefore, will the Government introduce for the Bill?
There is much still to be debated in the Bill. We on these Benches look forward to returning to it in detail in Committee and at later stages.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is an important issue although it is a small Bill. It is important because, as my noble friend Lady Crawley said, the amount lost for taxpayers by fraud could well exceed the amount we spend on overseas development. The figure is substantial. I was pleased, as I am sure were other noble Lords, to hear the thoughtful and well-informed debate from around the Chamber, for which I am grateful. I am also grateful that the need to deal with fraud and its pervasiveness attracts such wide support. I always pale when phrases such as "getting the balance right" are used. No one disagrees with the phrase, it is the meaning that we dispute, although I am confident, as always, that the Government have got the balance right.
In seeking to wind up, I make the usual disclaimer. If I inadvertently omit any point, or run out of time—that is the more likely—I shall write to noble Lords. For example, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, will allow me to write to him on Scotland. I have all the information here but it is elaborate. It might be better to write to him and I am happy to put a copy of the letter in the Library so that other noble Lords may take advantage of that.
I shall respond to three general points: timetable, responses and the scale of fraud. I shall refer to the four major points raised: the use of powers, safeguards, human rights issues and the burdens on business. If time permits, I shall deal with some of the more specific one-off points which have arisen in the debate.
1084
The first general point related to the timetable. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that there was not time to comment on the Bill. The main measures of the Bill were set out in the White Paper, Safeguarding Social Security, which was published last July. Organisations and members of the public were given three months to comment. The report of my noble friend Lord Grabiner was published as long ago as March 2000. I accept that this debate comes immediately after the vacation but I do not think that organisations could argue reasonably that they have been short changed on consultation time.
The noble Lord also asked whether we intended to put copies of the consultation responses in the Libraries. We have published a summary—although I take the point that it is a summary of a summary—and, in addition, anyone who wants copies of the responses may apply and will receive them from the department. We do not normally place copies of all responses in the Libraries because the bulk of them can become a storage problem, but I shall ensure that the noble Lord and any others who are interested are sent a full set of the responses to work on.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked whether we could see the draft code of practice. We have promised to involve the organisations affected by the Bill in the drafting of the code. The first meeting to discuss the code will take place next week. A draft will then be prepared for further discussion.
The third general point, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, was the scale of fraud and how we arrived at our estimate of £2 billion of fraud. We estimated the figure through our programme of benefit reviews, which take a random sample of claimants who are subjected to a detailed investigation, including home visits. The number and volume of frauds identified are grossed up to produce a total national estimate. That is supported by area studies, sampling and covert activities. We cannot have firm figures, but, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, we use the best methods that we have, with sampling, detailed follow-up surveys and area-based studies. However, the noble Baroness is right that the figure remains approximate.
The first major point of issue embodied in the Bill, as opposed to process points, was the use that we expect to make of the powers. Many of your Lordships asked about that. The measures could in no way be used to permit discrimination. A person's race, sex or disability do not predetermine whether they are more likely to commit fraud and the Bill does not provide for inquiries on that basis. The powers can be used only when there is statistical evidence to support targeted inquiries. I have two examples. First, we know from our area benefit reviews that income support claimants who have committed fraud before are 70 per cent more likely than other income support claimants to commit fraud. Such a differential surely justifies targeting those who have committed fraud in the past.
Secondly, we know from experience that local areas may have activities or occupations that are particular to them. Window cleaners and gardeners sometimes advertise their services by telephone number only in the

1085
local press. If the local fraud investigation service noticed an increase in fraud among such groups in its locality, the powers could be used to identify the subscribers to those telephone numbers, cross-check them against benefit records and investigate anyone who was claiming benefit while advertising such a service. Those are the issues that we are concerned about.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister see any danger that that approach might reduce the number of window cleaners?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the measure will ensure that window cleaners do not simultaneously ask for cash in hand and draw benefit. Instead, they should charge their customers, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the going rate for the job so that they do not need to milk the informal economy.
The noble Earl asked a serious question about other forms of discrimination, including on the grounds of sexual orientation. I took that point. Inquiries on that basis are not provided for and they would be unlawful. We shall make that plain in the code of practice that will govern the operation of the powers. Given the concern of the noble Earl and others, it is right that we should make that transparent in the code of practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether DSS inquiries would affect credit ratings. My noble friend Lord Grabiner said that we can now do that with credit agencies without leaving a footprint that could affect someone's credit rating.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I was slightly puzzled by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, on that point. Clearly the credit agency will know and the footprint of the inquiry will be all over its documents.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we shall make arrangements with the credit reference agencies to ensure that nobody accessing their records will be able to detect that the DSS has looked at a person's credit record. In that sense, the information should not go on to other, inappropriate sources.
Lord Higgins: But, my Lords, the credit agency will know that someone is suspect and will therefore adjust its rating of the person's credit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there are two points here. First, maybe they should. Secondly, the broader point is that we are talking about individual staff members of the credit reference agency. They will not be able to detect the footfall, because the DSS will not leave it behind after interrogating the records.
That brings me to a related point that the noble Lord raised about the banks' concerns for the civil liberties of their customers. I think that I detected a tongue-in-cheek response from the noble Lord when he made the point. Obviously, banks have a proper concern, although they may be more concerned to retain their customers' trust in their probity. That is an honourable
1086
and decent thing to wish to do. Many bank customers might be a little surprised if they ever got round to reading the tiny print—smaller than telephone directory print—that usually goes with bank statements encouraging people to open new accounts, which allows banks and credit reference agencies to exchange information far beyond what most of us imagine. In some cases, that exchange of information is even beyond what the DSS is seeking. That concern may be a little curious when the banks already exchange information affecting their clients as part of protecting the security of their business.
The noble Lord also asked whether local authority staff could wander off and interrogate individual bank staff—the problem of centralised information. DSS and local authority staff will make arrangements to obtain information in writing. We are talking to those from whom the information will be sought to agree appropriate administrative arrangements for requiring information using the powers.
The second point was about safeguards. We already provide strong safeguards against a person obtaining or disclosing information unlawfully. We have a Data Protection Act that makes it an offence knowingly or recklessly to obtain or disclose information, with fines of up to £5,000 and an unlimited fine in the Crown Court. Secondly, Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides for the specific offence of unlawfully disclosing information obtained during social security administration. That covers staff who are working or have worked on social security administration in the DSS and local authorities. It provides for severe penalties, including imprisonment. Finally, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 contains offences relating specifically to the misuse of computers to obtain information. It provides for a maximum of five years in prison. I do not think that we need additional provisions.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, we also have additional administrative safeguards in the quality and training of our staff. Only authorised staff can use the powers. We anticipate authorising only a handful of staff in each of the 13 administrative areas to ensure that the powers are used only by specialists. The detailed code of practice will bind investigators and can be obtained by organisations and members of the public, who can then hold them accountable against it. DSS staff authorised to use the powers will be trained by our professionalism and security programme, which is also available to local authorities. The staff will be securely chosen, checked and trained. If the system breaks down, tough disciplinary procedures will follow. If any of your Lordships have any further worries, I shall be happy to respond in correspondence.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether we could guarantee that the information would not be given to anyone else. The only obvious recipient that we can think of is the Inland Revenue, which is already permitted. Unlawful disclosure of information is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years.

1087
I was also asked how long the DSS would hold on to its records. We normally destroy such records after about 18 months, but if a fraud prosecution was under way, we would hang on to them until it had concluded. Finally, on the point about information, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, asked about charities. The provisions relate only to information about customers, not the relationship between employers and employees.
The third issue of substance was human rights and interaction with data protection. My noble friend Lord Grabiner dealt with that powerfully. His arguments were unanswerable. The Data Protection Commissioner has questioned whether the powers to obtain information are necessary and whether they are sufficiently precise and accessible in order to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. I would argue, as did my noble friend, that so long as some claimants lie to us, as they do—that is the definition of "fraud"—those powers are necessary.
If benefits cheats did not lie to us and were not fraudulent, I would agree with the Data Protection Commissioner that we could obtain the information that we need from the claimant. However, by definition, if the claimant is fraudulent, he will lie to us or refuse us access to information. I gave an example in which we suspected someone in the building trade who had large sums of money going into his bank account. He refused us access. If the Data Protection Commissioner's concerns were upheld, we would not be able to obtain information about such a fraud because the person concerned could refuse us access to his bank account. That fraud, which may involve a sum of £10,000 or £50,000, could go unchecked because those powers would be denied us.
A question of balance arises, and I respect that. However, I believe that your Lordships will understand our difficulties. If claimants have sole control over the information which we can obtain about them, by definition the very people whom we suspect will be those who deny us access to that information. It is very difficult to square that circle in good faith. That does not mean that the powers should not be exercised properly according to a code of guidance by staff who are properly trained and managed. However, it is a circle that we cannot otherwise square.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may narrow an area of difference. I did not hear any noble Lord today suggest that no such powers should exist. The argument concerned whether the powers are defined correctly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suspect that I may have a slightly different reading of this matter. I was being pressed as to whether the Data Protection Commissioner believed that the powers were compatible with Articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act. That is what I was seeking to address.
I was going on to say that, together with the Secretary of State, I shall be meeting the Data Protection Commissioner shortly to explain why in our judgment and following our legal advice we believe that the powers comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and to discuss her concerns. However, I
1088
can assure the House that my understanding is that the powers meet the convention's tests of being precise and accessible because we would not use them until a detailed code of practice had been published. The Data Protection Commissioner would be consulted on the draft code of practice and claimants would also be informed that their information may be checked with third parties.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again and am grateful to the noble Baroness. Will she give us an indication about timing so far as concerns the code of practice; that is, will this House have an opportunity to examine the code before the Bill makes much further progress?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords. We have already started to hold negotiations and discussions with bodies about the draft code. However, I understand that the draft code will be published well before any of this Bill comes into effect.
Perhaps I may now move to the final substantive point raised by several noble Lords in relation to burdens on business. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that it was unreasonable that the Bill should place a burden on employers. It is intended that such a burden should be placed where employers have colluded with their employees to commit benefit fraud; for example, by paying lower wages, as in the example described by my noble friend Lord Grabiner, thereby giving themselves an unfair competitive advantage over lawful employers. In those cases, we mean precisely for the Bill to be burdensome.
Business organisations support our view and not that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The Federation of Small Businesses, for example, told us that it supports Clause 14 because it will help it to deter the collusive employer and thus give greater protection to the lawful employer. The notion that the DSS is intending to run a protection racket by extracting £1,000 fines as an alternative to taking a case to court because it wants to increase its coffers seems to me to suggest a degree of fancy that one would not expect from a noble Baroness who commands such high esteem in her profession of accountancy.
I was asked whether the estimated costs to businesses in the regulatory impact assessment were net or gross. They are gross. I am sorry that that information is not on the website. The RIA should be included by the end of this month.
In relation to payments, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, asked me in particular whether the legislation would affect disproportionately small businesses and whether that would be unfair. We expect the measures to impinge primarily upon larger businesses. The only small businesses—as opposed to collusive employers, who, I agree, are likely to run smaller businesses—which we believe will be affected in terms of the costs of provision of information are, I suspect, cheque cashing shops. The Cheque Cashiers' Association supported our proposals in its response to our consultative document.

1089
Having dealt with the big points—that is, the use of the powers, the safeguards, the human rights issues and the burdens on business—I should like to spend one or two minutes running through some of the more specific and detailed points, which are no less important but perhaps less thematic.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked what response we had received to the Scampion report. We have taken on board the report's general recommendations by setting up the national benefit intelligence unit, headed by a former deputy director of MI5. We have strengthened the organised benefit fraud investigation service, now headed by the former head of investigations at Customs & Excise. The two units will work well together in an intelligence-led approach to tackling fraud. We are setting up a joint working group with local authorities and, as a result, are replacing the weekly benefit savings scheme for them.
I move to a totally different point. As I said, this is "shopping list" time; therefore, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why we needed the words "or likely to" in new Section (2C) in relation to obtaining information. He was worried that that indicated a fishing trip and wondered whether we were assuming guilt before having reasonable grounds to do so. The reason why we require powers to investigate is that, for example, a person may well not have committed an offence but may have two national insurance numbers. We would want to know why. Another example is that a person may be found with a large number of order books which he is about to encash but has not yet done so. It is that type of example—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I take her point about those cases. However, would they not be covered by the words "reasonable grounds to suspect fraud" without invoking the words "are likely to"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall certainly look at the legislation to discover whether the word "reasonable" is preferable to the words "likely to". However, at present where we have reasonable grounds and believe that the action may occur reasonably precipitously, that is the basis on which we have statutory authority for our actions. However, I shall see whether the wording should be clarified or, indeed, whether any guidance would make it clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also asked about CIFAS—the central service for financial organisations—and how information swapping was progressing. Department officials will meet CIFAS and the finance organisations next week. They will discuss what information we hold which may be made available to banks and insurance companies.
However, clearly we must also be careful about what information we give them because information accessed through credit reference agencies is sometimes less secure than is information held by the DSS. The noble Lord may be somewhat surprised at the
1090
information which flashes up on the screen each time he pays for his petrol bill with a credit card. We must take care that certain information is not passed on which then goes to the local small garage which is processing the card. We want to be constructive and reasonable but we also have a duty of care, as the noble Lord will understand, particularly when one is dealing with sensitive questions about, for example, family relationships and so on.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked whether the power to add to the list of organisations that can be required to provide information gave us carte blanche powers by regulation. First, this is an affirmative order. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be delighted about that. We could deal with such a power only by returning to this House for authority. Its main purpose concerns the fact that types of organisation change. We need to be able to have access to those organisations because they have changed without having to come back for primary legislation. However, that would be carried out by affirmative order and therefore proper parliamentary scrutiny would take place.
I turn to a point which I take most seriously. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether we would guarantee that information that we hold about asylum seekers would not be given to their—I was about to say "host"—enemy government, if I may express it in that manner. I give a categorical assurance that that would absolutely not be the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, asked about identity cards. She was absolutely right—that is beyond the scope of the Bill, and not, I may say, for entirely accidental reasons. Other countries that have identity cards have found that such cards can be forged. When there is a single gateway—the identity card—that is forged, a whole array of services opens up. Oddly, our rather more bumbling approach, which has several different gateways, may in those cases serve to act as some protection against fraud. However, that is not a simple issue, and having an identity card would not necessarily hugely increase our security arrangements, although it would alter the way in which we approached the issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, also asked about joint bank accounts. I take her point, especially in relation to women. In my experience, joint bank accounts are normally held between family members. One of the major areas of fraud tends to affect family members. For example, one family member may be working and the other claiming benefit. If she has other worries about that matter which do not involve family members, perhaps she would let me know and I shall seek to address her concerns. I shall give my response about Scotland in a letter.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about funding local authority investigations. An authority will receive a subsidy for the fraud that it detects and should see financial benefit from the outcome.

1091
Finally, I turn to the last substantive item; that is, war pensioners. It was raised by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Strange—I persist in calling her my noble friend although she sits on the Cross Benches. It was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor. I emphasise the fact that war pensioners seldom, if ever, commit fraud. So far as I am aware, we have detected only six frauds during the past six months involving war pensions. That rate is far lower than for mainstream benefits. The areas in which fraud is likely to occur are not necessarily because the war pensioner is fraudulent—someone else may be making false claims on his behalf. Occasionally, with regard to treatment allowance, there are false claims about attendance for treatment. There can also be a failure to declare an increase in earnings or to declare employment. Previously—I am delighted to say that, as a result of the activity of my noble friend Lady Strange, this is now almost unheard of—there had also been a failure to declare that people were living as husband and wife. That is now no longer an issue, because one may retain the benefit.
We have not brought a prosecution for war pensions fraud, although that has been considered in some cases. There has to be a good reason for excluding that from the shopping list that we are looking at. What are we saying? That for someone to lose his benefit, he had to commit a fraudulent offence knowingly, willingly and maliciously, as certified by the courts, not once but twice. Does any noble Lord really suggest that a war pensioner who knowingly, willingly and maliciously committed a fraud—I agree that it is extremely unlikely—and if he lied and cheated and was found guilty not once but twice by the courts, should continue to enjoy a high level of benefit? I do not think so. It is inconceivable that that would happen, but, nonetheless, in the very rare case that it does, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, would want the benefit to continue. That would bring into disrepute war pensions that were honourably and properly earned, deserved, held and cashed by other war pensioners. I hope that no noble Lord believes that there is an issue in this context; there is not. I cannot conceive of any reason why the case should be excluded.
I shall close on that last point. I have used enough of your Lordships' time. I shall write to noble Lords about any points that I have not dealt with. I thank noble Lords for our well-informed, courteous and interesting debate, and I seek their co-operation in trying to improve the Bill. What matters at the end of the day is that we eradicate fraud not just to save money for the taxpayer but to re-build confidence in the welfare system, especially for pensioners, who are often reluctant to claim. I shall seek the help of noble Lords in so doing. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th December be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for the purposes of this debate, I shall refer to the draft Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 using the number three, because they are the third main item on the Order Paper. I shall refer to the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000 using the number four, to the Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000 using the number five, to the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000 using the number six and to the Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000 using the number seven. I hope that the regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 6th December 2000, will be approved.
All children are entitled to the financial and emotional support of their parents. All parents are responsible for supporting their children, whether they live together or apart.
The current child support scheme was established, with the agreement of all parties in this House and in another place, to ensure that children benefited from the financial support of both parents and to make it easier for non-resident parents to provide that support.
We know that the current system has failed and is in need of radical reform. Our proposals for a new and simpler system, which is focused on the need to ensure that maintenance due becomes maintenance paid, have won widespread support. The Act that forms the foundation for the reform received Royal Assent last July.

1093
If your Lordships wish, I am willing to explain why we needed to reform the legislation, but I suspect that it is not necessary to repeat the Second Reading debate of a Bill that we have already discussed at great length. However, I am happy to revisit those arguments if that is what noble Lords wish.
The Act sets out the general principles on which the new child support scheme will be based, but, inevitably, much of the detail was left to secondary legislation. The regulations before the House, and several negative measures, which were made in December, provide that detail.
Before I explain the effect of each regulation package, I shall briefly discuss the way in which we shall bring the reforms and, consequently, the regulations, into effect. We believe that the new child support scheme will be better for children and their parents and we want to bring it into effect as soon as possible. However, there is a great deal of work to do to prepare the agency for the new scheme, including the development of completely new computer systems. We cannot rush that work, so we have set out to ensure that the new scheme will be introduced for new cases by April 2002, with existing cases transferring over from a later date, once we are sure that the systems are working well.
That phased introduction means that the regulations must also be introduced in a phased way. This is why the regulations in the packages before the House are, on the whole, designed to come into force when relevant sections of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 are commenced in respect of specific cases. However, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, there are some provisions in the new legislation which will improve the effectiveness of the current scheme, paving the way for reform.
It is for that reason that we are bringing the following provisions in the 2000 Act into effect on 31st January 2001: Section 13, which makes provision for two new criminal offences of failing to provide information to the agency when required to do so, or for providing false information; Section 14, which streamlines the appointment of child support inspectors to gather the information required for assessing and collecting child support; Section 15, which will help the agency to collect maintenance in cases of disputed paternity; and Section 22, which will allow the Child Support Agency to collect maintenance from certain non-resident parents working abroad for employers based in the UK.
Those provisions will help to address two key weaknesses in the current system, the first of which is the lack of information. The new criminal penalties will provide all who have contact with the agency with a clear incentive for frank and open disclosure. On conviction, those who continue to provide false information, or who refuse to provide the information required, will face a fine of up to £1,000. That penalty is intended as a deterrent but, wherever possible, the agency will attempt to avoid bringing prosecutions by
1094
encouraging clients to provide the correct information. However, we do not want clients to think that they can string the agency along.
Those incentives will be supported by the new streamlined appointment of child support inspectors. Currently, inspectors can be appointed, absurdly, only on a case-by-case basis, which prevents the establishment of the necessary core of expertise. The new provision will allow the agency to appoint teams of inspectors to deal with complex cases, such as establishing the income of self-employed parents, and thus to build up appropriate expertise.
The second weakness involves disputed paternity. Too often, non-resident parents are able to delay the process of collecting maintenance for their children by denying paternity even when they have no reason to doubt it. About 200,000 cases a year involve the denial of paternity, but only 20,000 are subsequently tested and in only 2,000 cases is the claim upheld. The new provision will extend the circumstances in which the agency can presume paternity where an alleged parent is likely to be the child's parent. The agency will also be able to assume that an alleged parent who refuses to take or accept the result of a DNA test is, in fact, the parent of the child.
In addition, from April this year we are commencing Section 16 of the 2000 Act, which provides for magistrates, exercising their civil powers, to make orders for the disqualification of non-resident parents who have persistently failed to meet their child support responsibilities from holding a driving licence. That provision, which offers an alternative to committal to prison for the most unco-operative non-resident parents, was debated at length during the passage of the Bill. Section 17 of the 2000 Act applies to Scotland.
The first two packages of regulations before the House today, therefore, will, in part, support those early changes.
The Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) Regulations amend existing provisions governing the collection and disclosure of information for child support purposes. Amendments made by Regulations 5(2)(b), (d) and (e) provide access to records held by the DVLA, the Prison Service and accountants. Regulation 6(3) amends existing legislation to ensure that people providing information to the agency are aware of the new criminal offences. Those provisions will be brought into effect on 31st January.
Those regulations also cover the jurisdiction of the CSA to calculate and collect maintenance. Amendments made by Regulation 8(3) support the extension of agency jurisdiction to certain non-resident parents working abroad for employers based in the UK by virtue of Section 22 of the 2000 Act. That provision will also come into effect on 31st January.
The Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations also amend existing regulations. Provisions include those relating to withdrawal by the courts of driving licences as an alternative to an order for committal to prison.

1095
Amendments made by Regulation 2(6) and the schedule to those regulations provide for a disqualification from driving order and for the way in which such an order may be executed. Those provisions will come into effect on 2nd April. These regulations also make detailed provision for the imposition of financial penalties for late payment of maintenance.
The Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedures) Regulations will govern the processes in relation to applications for maintenance and cases where a parent with care claiming IS or JSA(IB) opts out of child support. In particular, these regulations provide for the date on which an application for child support will be treated as made (Regulation 3); determining, in cases where there is more than one application in relation to the same parents and child, which application will be proceeded with (Regulation 4 and Schedule 2); giving notice of an application for child support to the non-resident parent (Regulation 5); the rate of maintenance liability to be set by a default maintenance decision (Regulation 7); the procedure for making a reduced benefit decision when a parent with care on IS or ISA(IB) opts out of child support without good cause and the penalty which will apply (Regulations 8 to 20); and, finally, the date from which maintenance calculations take effect (Regulations 25 to 29).
I am happy to enlarge on any aspect of the provisions, but noble Lords may wish me to move on to the next package of regulations. However, I am happy to respond, if I can, to any questions as they arise.
The Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations provide in detail for the calculation of child support liability and for determining which parent is to be treated as a nonresident parent in certain special cases. Noble Lords will recall that the Act provides for liability to be determined using one of four rates: the basic rate where the non-resident parent's net weekly income is £200 or more; the modified rate where net weekly income is less than £200 but more than £100; the flat rate where net weekly income is £100 or less or the non-resident parent or his partner is receiving a prescribed benefit; or the nil rate, which will apply to prescribed groups including prisoners and students. Regulations 2 to 5 provide the basic rules for working out child support liability. They specify the information on which the calculation is to be based and provide rounding rules and the like.
Regulations 6 and 14 provide for working out the apportionment of liability between a number of parents with care. Regulations 7, 9 and 11 provide detailed rules for working out reductions in liability to reflect shared care arrangements, care of the child by a local authority and the non-resident parent's responsibility to maintain other children under a court order.
The more generous shared-care arrangements under the new scheme will ensure that the child support scheme gives proper recognition to those who take on the important job of providing day-to-day care for their children. The remainder of the regulations deal with special cases, such as where a child is in hospital, and the schedule provides for the calculation of net weekly income.
1096
I turn finally to the Child Support (Variations) Regulations. These regulations make detailed provision for the variation of the maintenance calculation to reflect exceptional circumstances, including child-related special expenses and income not taken into account in making the maintenance calculation.
Part II of this set provides the detailed rules relating to an application for a variation, including, in Regulation 4, how to apply and, in Regulation 9, the process for determining an application which has not been rejected on a preliminary sift.
Parts III, IV, V and VII of the regulations set out in detail the cases in which a variation can be allowed and provide for the resulting maintenance calculation. We have not provided for any cases additional to those listed in Schedule 4B to the 1991 Act as amended by the 2000 Act. As I explained in earlier debates, we are determined to keep the variations scheme tightly focused. While I understand the arguments for recognising other expenses, we concluded that for most parents the child support rates provide a fair liability. All parents have special expenses. The rates are intended to allow non-resident parents to retain sufficient income to meet most of them. We do not seek to re-introduce the complexity of the current scheme which will move them from the assessment back into the variation system.
In conclusion, taxpayers, parents and, most importantly, children deserve better than the current confusing, slow and above all ineffective child support arrangements, which mean that 1 million children go without the money to which they are entitled. Our reforms will ensure that parents meet their responsibilities; that maintenance can be sorted out quickly; and that many children will for the first time see the benefit of maintenance payments. These regulations are an important part of the reform. I commend them to the House.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th December be approved [1st Report front the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heighani.)
6.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in listening to the noble Baroness on this subject, I am not sure whether I was overcome with a sense of déjà vu or nostalgia. Almost all those present in the Chamber recall the long series of elaborate debates on this matter—one which in a real sense the Minister has made her own. She has been very much involved in trying to reform the system of which, when introduced, everyone was in favour but which subsequently turned out to raise extremely large difficulties. Hopefully it is now settling down.
When we discussed this matter previously, we were concerned about various aspects; for example, the upper limits on maintenance payments, which I understand appears in the orders and that we welcome; the sole emphasis on the income of a non-resident parent; and the provision for the CSA to intervene in private agreements, which was the other aspect of what was in effect a deal which the noble Baroness did. We

1097
were also concerned about the disqualification from driving as an alternative penalty. That was debated at great length. Alas, it still comes within the regulations. We still regard it as being—I was going to say "stupid"—not a sensible provision.
What is frightening is the sheer volume of detail in the regulations. The part of the Bill concerned with child support appears to be roughly the same size as the main legislation.
I was slightly puzzled by the debate in another place on 18th December, which concerned the shift from one system to another and the way in which the existing and new cases were to be dealt with. My understanding was that existing cases would be dealt with on the old formula and the new cases under the new formula. That seems likely to produce considerable problems.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to respond to the noble Lord now.
We are saying that from April 2002 new cases, as they come through the system week by week and month by month, will go on to the new formula. We will bring existing cases over on to the new formula when we are confident that the IT system is running smoothly. In other words, we are avoiding bringing existing cases over at the same time as the new cases and the "big bang" argument. Therefore, it is true that existing cases will be on the old formula for a period of time—I hope a fairly short period of time—as the new cases come on. However, as soon as we are confident that the system is robust—I have every faith that it will be—the existing cases will come on to the new formula. I hope that that assists the noble Lord.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I had misunderstood the situation. We shall obviously go through a transitional period on the basis described by the noble Baroness, but the sooner that happens the better. I presume that means that when some people who are on the old formula change to the new formula they will pay less than before.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that we explored this issue in the course of debates, but that was some time ago. Yes, some NRPs will be better off and some parents with care will be worse off, and vice versa. The noble Lord will recall that that is why we are introducing phasing arrangements, so that nobody on a relatively similar income will find their situation sharply affected and therefore be unable to cope with properly entered into other responsibilities. First, we are bringing the existing caseload in after the new cases have settled in, so that people have plenty of advance notice as to when they will come in. Secondly, the noble Lord will recall that when they do come in, there will be a £5 per year change for those in receipt of under £200 and a £10 per year change for those in receipt of above £200 if they have a substantive fall or gain in their maintenance calculation because we are trying to protect their financial situation.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, once again, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. That being so, and
1098
because we have certainly debated the four issues I mentioned at considerable length, I shall not detain the House further. I am sorry about the driving licences, but I hope that the reforms which are now being introduced will result in a much better system in which the parents pay for their children in a sensible way. The noble Baroness should be congratulated on the way in which she has dealt with this matter. We hope that the system will work and that the transitional period will be short.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thoroughly share the Minister's sentiment about Second Reading debates. I do not want to engage in one and I hope that I do not. However, perhaps I may ask in return that the Minister will not say again that the measure, either now or in the past, was brought in with the assent of all parties. Mr Peter Lilley, who I believe knows something about this, said in the debate on the football Bill last year that most of the worst mistakes he knew of had been made by collusion between the Front Benches. Therefore, one should be a little careful about such a claim.
I shall pay attention to the detail of the regulations. I assure the Minister that I shall not mention them all or we would be here all night. My first point concerns the collection and enforcement regulations. I refer to the penalty payment for being in arrears. The Minister knows my sentiment on the "can't pay won't pay" point. I shall not repeat that. However, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to consider the possibility that there might be one single case in future which is genuinely a case of "can't pay". Is there any discretion about requiring the payments for being in arrears? Would I be justified in inducing encouragement on that point from the use in the regulation of the words,
"The Secretary of State may require"?
Does he have to impose the penalty or is there any discretion? If he does have to impose it, do the Act and the regulations exclude the prerogative of mercy? That is a real question to which I should rather like the answer.
I refer to the variations regulations. Regulation 10(1) lists allowable special expenses. I notice in Regulation 10(1)(c) that transport by taxi to visit one's child is to be allowed only in cases of disability or long-term illness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Perhaps he would be kind enough always to repeat his cross-references. By the time I have identified the correct set of regulations I have forgotten the particular line to which he refers.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. I have probably not helped by taking these out of order because it was the order in which they came to me in my pile. From the collection and enforcement regulations I quoted Regulation 7A(3) which contains the words,
"The Secretary of State may require"
and that gave rise to the question about the prerogative of mercy. In the variations regulations I referred to Regulation 10(1)(c). What of the case where the taxi is the only means of available transport? Sadly, there are

1099
many more such cases, in rural areas in particular, than one would like to think. It is a weakness in the system that special expenses can be allowed only if they have been prescribed in the past. So, if they have not been foreseen they cannot be recognised.
I gave the Minister's office notice that I wanted to raise a point from one of the negative regulations on this subject. I refer to Regulation 3186. Regulation 7 states that the Secretary of State's use of information shall be intraversable. That caused me concern. I should be glad to know why it is there and what it means.
I refer to the maintenance calculation procedure regulations and wish to raise a point from Schedule 1, Regulation 3. This is another case of the interface between the education system and the social security system not really being carried out with proper understanding on both sides.
The problem the regulation addresses is that of deciding when people of 16 and 17 are still in full-time education. The attempt is made to define "full-time education" by the number of hours concerned minus meal breaks. I am sure that the Minister knows as well as I that that will not work where one is dealing with people who are doing an A-level course in humanities and who spend a great deal of time at home reading books. It simply cannot be done in that way; it will not work. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, remembers the exchanges we had about the students regulations and social security. There is a real problem here which needs to be addressed. Perhaps I may look back a moment because this also relates to the power in the Social Security Fraud Bill to require information from educational institutions. It would be helpful to such institutions if the questions could be designed in a format which is capable of an answer.
However, as I am sure the Minister anticipated, my main concern is over the reduced benefit directions in the maintenance calculation procedure regulations. I should like first to mention a small point on the time limit for supplying information on good cause for not supplying the father's name. There is a time limit of four weeks which, if I understand correctly, is not discretionary. However, I would be reassured if I were told that there could be discretion about that.
I think, for example, of cases of domestic violence where sometimes the trauma is such that for a long time the person cannot bring themselves to say in public what has happened; or the case, which is sadly common, of people suffering from depression. From my experience as a tutor I know to my cost that it can be dreadfully difficult to get people to take any kind of action. That is a symptom of the disease and as such must be treated with understanding, however much one may at times wish otherwise.
However, my main concern is Regulation 11(2) which raises the duration of the reduced benefit decision; that is the length of time during which the woman who will not supply the father's name to the CSA can be without benefit. That is now increased to 156 weeks, which is three years. It is beginning to sound like 18th century criminal legislation. In interpreting legislation, a good rule is that constantly increasing
1100
penalties imposed for a particular offence suggests that something about the definition of the offence makes it difficult to enforce. In fact, the escalation of the penalties is a legislator's confession of failure. The situation needs reading in that light.
There is also a serious question about the consequence of any such reduction for this length of time. Perhaps I may again revert to an exchange we had during the previous business. The Minister, replying on the issue of war pensions, said that she did not believe that anyone would maintain that in the case of two such serious offences the person concerned might still receive benefit.
This is not only a moral issue; it is a practical issue, too. In any legislation, one must always ask whether the mischief created by the legislation is greater or lesser than the mischief it is designed to avoid. One cannot even so much as answer that question if one does not know the consequences of the measure one is introducing.
That is why monitoring what happens to people who are deprived of social security benefits is so vital to any serious argument about whether the sanction should be imposed. One cannot know whether a sanction is justified if one cannot know the consequences.
I have taken the Minister through the matter once today so she is familiar with my arguments. Until she can give coherent information on the consequences, she will continue to hear those arguments and, from time to time, find divisions, some possibly unexpected, on the benefit sanctions.
This is the third time I have raised the matter today. Occasionally, I can claim to be a bellman and I believe that this is such an occasion. I hope that one day I shall receive an answer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not expect to be let off so gently by the Liberal Democrat Benches—not as gently as the Conservative Benches because there is a meeting of minds between Labour and Conservative Benches. However, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was sincere in making his points. He asked whether there was any discretion in penalty payments, saying that if I could assure him that there was, he would be content. I am happy to say that I look forward to the noble Earl being content because the penalty will be totally discretionary. The agency will use its powers to encourage compliance and will not automatically impose a penalty whenever a payment is late. I do not know whether the noble Earl will be satisfied with the remaining answers, but I hope that he will regard that as a reasonable start.
He went on to ask whether we have a reasonable definition of "full-time" education, given the hours of study and reading. As a former academic, I take his point, but the provision reflects the position in other legislation; for instance, the child benefit provisions. Therefore, we are being consistent.
The noble Earl asked a substantive question about the reduced benefit directions about which he has been concerned over the years. He asked about the increase to 156 weeks of reduced benefit decisions. There may be

1101
a misunderstanding because that duration was last increased in 1996 and there is no change as a result of these regulations. Therefore, the Act has not worsened the benefit penalty.
He then went on to ask whether the Government have a coherent, informed position of what happens to women in that situation. As I knew the noble Earl would be properly concerned about the issue, and because we wanted to have the information, we undertook research as the Bill progressed. We know that of the 70 per cent of people who lose their reduced benefit direction within a few months of its imposition one-third will have started work, one-third will have cooperated with the agency, and one-third will have repartnered. We undertook, first, a sample survey to discover how many people were being affected and then, secondly, a detailed qualitative survey following what happened to the women who had been sanctioned. The survey was small and quick but seems to confirm our other evidence.
As I said, we understand that of the 70 per cent, one-third start work, one-third co-operate and one-third repartner. Of the remaining 30 per cent, approximately two-thirds lose their reduced benefit direction within the year because they are co-operating, and we suspect that where claims to benefit are withdrawn, there may be fraud. I do not know whether that helps the noble Earl but I assure him that I would not want to be party to any such scheme of sanctions if I did not feel it was decent and appropriate under the circumstances. A child is entitled to the support of both parents. The noble Earl is entitled to press me on whether the definition of "good cause" is adequate, but if there is no good cause the woman has no right to expect the taxpayer rather than the child's natural father to act as the father of the child. That is why we have such sanctions.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking the research and I note her information. First, will the research be published? Secondly, does it contain information on the means of subsistence which are open to the women concerned while they are not receiving benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no, it will not be published because it was undertaken quickly, based on a qualitative sample, by the analytical services divisions of the DSS and the CSA. We shall in any event monitor the effect of our policies but will not publish the research.
The noble Earl asked whether we know what happens to those who have no means of subsistence. I suggested that of the 70 per cent of those exposed to reduced benefit direction, one-third repartner and are then no longer of lone parent status and entitled to income support; one-third return to work and are not entitled to income support; and one-third go on to cooperate with the agency and receive their benefit. The 30 per cent who do not end their RBDs lose their income support. I do not want to malign lone parents, but our evidence—it is speculative because there is no way of
1102
detecting this undetected fraud—suggests that someone may be cohabiting and therefore unwilling to have her income support claims further exposed. In that situation, such women tend to come off benefit.
We have done the best we can. We have reached the point where women are refusing to provide the information we can use in order to discover the consequences of their behaviour.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in future research questions, will the Minister include those which show whether benefit sanctions encourage fraud?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the noble Earl would like to write to me with the counterfactual evidence which would prove that, I should be pleased to consider it. However, you cannot have as a question for research whether benefit sanctions include fraud. The question is not answerable in that form. If the noble Earl would break it down into sub-questions to which numbers can be attached so that they could be quantified, I should be pleased to ensure that they would be counted. However, in all humility I suggest that as he phrases the question, it is not answerable because it is a qualitative statement about cultures. One can count only those questions which have numbers attached.
However, at the end of the day the noble Earl must stand behind it and ask why we are doing this. It is not the intention to be nasty to lone parents, but there may be a point at which the perceived interests of the lone parent diverge from those of the child. We believe that the child is entitled to the support of his natural parents, including, for the most part, the non-resident father. We also believe that because of the pain and anguish of divorce sometimes the mother may wish to have a clean break. However, she is not entitled to project that onto the child. Therefore, she should be required to cooperate. Alternatively, she may take the consequences of not co-operating and accept a benefit penalty.
As a result of the system that we have developed, which means that we work with the Benefits Agency so that at the point at which the lone parent first comes onto income support she is encouraged to fill in the form, we have moved from the inherited situation in which only 20 to 30 per cent of lone parents co-operated with the CSA to one where over 80 per cent co-operate with good grace to the benefit of the child. Obviously, I should like to see all lone parents co-operate. We know that where reduced benefit directions kick in most lone parents either co-operate or have alternative sources of income. At the end of the day, those who do not cooperate may be operating within the informal economy and do not wish to expose themselves in that way. I hope the noble Earl accepts that we are not doing this to get at lone parents but to ensure that children receive from their fathers the support to which they are entitled. The taxpayer should not provide that support in lieu simply because the lone parent prefers a clean break.
I shall write to the noble Earl about "untraversable". He was kind enough to notify me of the point. However, because we were tied up with the earlier Bill I was unable to provide a satisfactory answer. I shall also deal with

1103
the noble Earl's point about taxis. I believe that that exhausts the specific points that he made about the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No.2) Order 2000
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can blame only the Opposition Benches for insisting that we deal with a long series of social security measures. Obviously, the Government do their best to accommodate the wishes of the Opposition. That all of these matters should be dealt with in one day, which requires that we move from one topic to another, was, as I understand it, the wish of the Opposition rather than the Government. I apologise to the House for moving to yet another subject.
As noble Lords are aware, this annual order and the other standing in my name on the Order Paper are a routine but vital part of DSS business. The original uprating order contained a minor drafting error which has been corrected in the measure before the House today. The order will increase most income-related benefits by the Rossi Index, which is 1.6 per cent. Most national insurance benefits will rise in the usual way in line with the Retail Prices Index, which is 3.3 per cent. As usual, the increases are based on changes to the relevant price indicators over the 12 months ending in September.
But there are areas of social security where we want to provide more than price protection. For families with children, people with disabilities, carers and pensioners we want to provide more help. First, we want to do more to help children. As your Lordships know, when we came into office we were faced with the unacceptable situation in which one in three children in this country lived in very poor households. We are determined to right that wrong. As a result of our Budget measures, thus far 1 million children will be lifted out of poverty. As part of our programme to eliminate the scourge of child poverty from this country, we shall introduce further measures from April of this year. The increase in child benefit, the new children's tax credit and increases in WFTC mean that a single earner family with two children on half average earnings (£12,500) will see their standard of living rise by 20 per cent this year, which is the biggest annual rise for 25 years.
By the end of the Parliament we shall be spending almost £6 billion extra a year on support for families with children. Most of that help will be directed at the poorest families. These cash measures, initiatives to tackle social exclusion, such as Sure Start, and improvements in education standards will ensure that all of our children get the start in life that they deserve.
1104
The second area where we want to do more is to provide help to people with disabilities and carers. From April we shall for the first time extend benefits to severely disabled three and four year-olds. Some 6,000 disabled children and their families will be better off by over £38 a week. We are also raising the disabled child premium by £7.40 a week above inflation. Around 80,000 children will see a rise in the disabled child premium from £22.25 to £30 a week which is a real increase for some of the neediest families in the country.
We also want to do more for adults with severe disabilities. In April the new disability income guarantee will be introduced, but not at the original rate of £128. The guarantee will be £142, which is an extra £14 a week. For couples, the guarantee will he £186.80. In addition, young adults disabled early in life will, as a result of the changes we made two years ago, benefit from an extra £27.60 a week.
We are also doing more to recognise the enormous contribution made by carers. The carer's prernium will be increased by £10 a week on top of the normal uprating. That means the premium will rise in April from £14.15 to £24.40. This measure will help over 200,000 carers on low incomes. We are also increasing the earnings threshold for invalid carer's allowance from £50 to £72, which is the rate of the lower earnings limit in national insurance. That will allow carers realistically to retain contact with the world of work and bring them within the contributory benefits system of the national insurance scheme. This package of measures will ensure that nearly £200 million extra will be spent annually on helping people with disabilities and carers.
The third area where we want to do more is pensioners. The order introduces measures to tackle pensioner poverty, ensure that every pensioner shares in the rising prosperity of our country and. reward pensioners for their saving. Our first priority for pensioners was to get more help quickly to the poorest. That was why we introduced the minimum income guarantee and made a commitment to increase it by the level of earnings for the rest of this Parliament. But in this order we shall raise the minimum income guarantee to £92.15, not just for those pensioners on the highest rate but all pensioners on the guarantee.
The second priority is that as we move towards the pension credit from 2003 we shall increase the basic state pension. We believe that that should be the foundation of pension provision as part of the partnership between state and funded pensions, and it is essential if people are to retire on a decent incorne in the future. This order will increase the basic state pension by £5 for single pensioners and £8 for married couples. Widow's and bereavement benefits will rise by the same amounts.
As a further part of the transition to the pension credit, the order will double the lower capital limit for the minimum income guarantee from £3,000 to £6,000 and increase the higher capital limit from £8,000 to £12,000 in April. That will benefit half a million pensioners who will find that modest savings no longer exclude them from entitlement to MIG.

1105
In total, we are spending more than £8.5 billion extra on pensioners this Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, we are spending £6 billion on children. We can do this only because we are delivering stable economic growth and reforming social security. We now see the results of our reforms. By moving people from benefits into jobs we are spending £4 billion less this year. Social security spending would be falling in real terms if we had not deliberately chosen to target more money on families with children, people with disabilities and pensioners; in other words, we are spending it on those who need it, not on propping up economic failure. By cutting the bills for economic and social failure we can provide help where it is most needed, giving greater security to pensioners and people who cannot work. The orders that we shall debate tonight deliver that additional spending, and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are debating a considerable number of social security matters on the same day. Without going into the mysterious workings of the usual channels, there is perhaps some convenience in proceeding in this way. This particular order uprates a large number of benefits, and I am sure that the recipients appreciate that. In a more general sense, it is rather worrying that government policy has been erratic. For example, there has been an increase of 75 pence in the basic pension in one year followed by a £5 increase in the next. Who knows what will happen next year? Having for many years represented a constituency which has more pensioners than any other, I believe that that kind of erratic measure will be viewed with considerable concern. People are still worried that the RPI used for pensions is not the same as that used for fuel and so on. But I do not think it is appropriate at this stage in the proceedings to make a large number of partisan points in response to what the Minister has said.
However, I make one particular point. We appear to be in a situation where debates on these matters divorce the increase in benefits from the increase in contributions. That is a reflection of the structural changes introduced by the Government. When I raised the issue of contributions on an earlier matter, the Minister replied that it was a matter for the Treasury. But, as she well knows, she and other Ministers in this House answer for all departments and the Government as a whole, not just their own department. Therefore, it is legitimate to say that here are these increases which take place, but what is the effect on contributions? Considerable concern was expressed at the way in which the Government, in announcing these changes—more particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer—sought to take much credit for the increase in the benefits, but they did not point out that the contribution increase was something like three times the rate of inflation for a substantial number of people. Perhaps I may restrict my question on this occasion to
1106
asking the Minister to tell us what are the implications in terms of the contributions which are necessary to finance the increase in benefit to which she has referred.
Earl Russell: My Lords, by convention this debate is used for a review of the general feel of social security. I shall use it to that effect as briefly as I can at this time of night. I appreciate that we are coming to the end of a marathon debate. But we are also coming to the end of a Parliament. In those circumstances, it is legitimate to review what has and has not been achieved.
Perhaps I may say to the Minister that she is a trooper and an old hand. She will not take anything that I may say personally. She has been a distinguished and excellent Minister. Unless what I say refers directly to her words or actions, I do not intend to imply any criticism of her personally.
The Government's overall record on social security is probably worse than their record in any other field except possibly the Home Office. I shall not say that I am disappointed about that. I read the Prime Minister's Amsterdam speech of February 1997 very carefully indeed. I expected nothing else.
First, I came into this Parliament with a long shopping list of things which I hoped to see reversed by the Government. I shall not rattle through that list. I am sure the Minister knows perfectly well what is on it. Most of them have not been touched. The single parent case is worse. The CSA case is worse in many ways. I remember everything that the Minister said when the legislation relating to the JSA was before the House. As Lord Henderson of Brompton put the issue at the time, it was the introduction of measures designed for the policing of the unemployed. No change there.
I am not sure of this judgment, but, with regard to asylum seekers, were I an asylum seeker I would rather try to run the gauntlet of Michael Howard's Bill of 1996 than penetrate the ring of steel set up by Jack Straw in 1999. I know what the Minister will say against that. It has substance; but so do the points on the other side—and the balance is difficult.
I shall not say "all is forgiven", but I do say to representatives of the previous government that we are not that much better off, if indeed we are at all. It is true that from the Government we do not have the hacking out of large slices from the safety net, like cutting a cake. Instead what we have through the use of benefit sanctions—I shall not repeat what I have just said—is pushing individuals out like pushing mashed vegetables through a sieve. The amount that goes out is probably about the same in both cases.
I know that there are remedies for poverty on offer. But what we find over and over again is that the Government always believe that they know best what is in the interest of the person who hopes to escape from poverty. They do not merely believe that their own judgment is better than that of the claimant but that they are entitled to enforce it by compulsion. Perhaps I may refer to the exchanges that we had a few moments ago on CSA reduced benefit penalties. The Minister was quite certain that she knew what was in the best

1107
interests of the child better than the child's mother. That is a question on which just a little doubt might well he becoming.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a somewhat unfair summary. I was making the point that there are occasions when the interests of the mother seeking a clean-break divorce and the interests of the child, because they can never divorce their parents, do not coincide but diverge. When that happens, decisions need to be made, and in that situation, they are difficult. I believe that the Government's primary responsibility is to children because they are the dependent ones.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I agree there are circumstances in which interests may diverge. What I am querying is the certainty the Minister feels that the interests diverge in this case. A little bit of hesitation about whether the mother's or the Minister's judgment is right is something I should be glad to hear.
We should remember that in dealing with the administration of the benefit system we have a gross inequality of power between the system and the claimant. Where we have that gross inequality, and that inequality is backed by the power to take benefits away altogether, we have a situation which may easily be perceived as oppressive on the receiving end.
We also have the constant repetition of the mantra, "Work for those who can; security for those who cannot". I previously suggested to the Minister that that has led to a denigration of benefits. Last night I looked at the use of the phrase "cash handouts" in the Green Paper on welfare reform. The Minister perfectly well remembers the passages to which I refer. That links up with the problem of uprating only by prices. That is not consignment of pensions. The Minister knows very well that I am not taking refuge behind the walls of the castle. I am not recommending a return to the earnings link. But, from time to time, as resources allow, it is necessary to uprate above prices.
The Acheson report pointed out that benefits were at a level inconsistent with preserving health. But on that point at least I am beginning to think that the Acheson report has gone the way of the Black report. No action on this point has followed. The problem is regularly perceived by the Government as one of getting people to want to work rather than of there not being any work. I have said this many times before, but it was clearly confirmed by an article by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment writing in the Observer as recently as last Sunday. He expressed the matter in these words:
"Jobs are there for the taking in most parts of the country".
He is not particularly impressed by any shortage of jobs. He said:
"It used to be thought that the number ofjobs in the economy was finite … The more people available to work with the right skills, the more jobs that are created".
If there is any research that sustains that proposition, I should be glad to see it.
1108
As for jobs being there for the taking, I looked at last January's figures for unemployment by constituency. I admit that they are a year out of date, and if the Minister has the information to bring me up to date, I should welcome and listen to it. A year ago, 34 constituencies had unemployment above 10 per cent overall. Constituencies where male unemployment was above 10 per cent numbered 84 in England and 15 in Scotland, including a rate of male unemployment in Sheffield Brightside of 12.9 per cent.
In his maiden speech in 1987 Mr Blunkett said he believed that he was the only Labour Member who woke up the day after the election looking on the "Brightside". Perhaps he should do it a little more often. It is because of the belief that jobs are there for the taking and that the number of jobs expands with the number of skilled people that we get addiction to compulsion and to thrusting people out of the safety net. I know that they may say that yesterday's announcement on neighbourhood renewal is getting away from the top-down approach, but I listened to the discussion of this issue on last night's "Newsnight". John Holman, who works in Glasgow Easterhouse, said:
"This is not really the case. The Government sets the targets and whatever power is devolved, it is still dominated by the targets. So in the end the Government makes the decisions".
I am even more concerned by what the Secretary of State said at the end of his article. He said:
"Our intention now is to make full employment a reality too".
That is fine if it is to be done by creating additional jobs. But if it is to be done by redefining the workless so that fewer of them are classified as unemployed, that could be a cause of very grave anxiety. When I look forward to the possibility of a Labour second term and I think of all that I have heard said in this Chamber and elsewhere on the theme of rights and responsibilities, I view a future Labour Government after the next election with dread.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Oh dear, my Lords! I shall try to respond to the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He asked about Contributions Agency issues, which are a matter for the Inland Revenue and are not part of the regulations under discussion. However, I shall have a go, basing my remarks on the Government Actuary's report, which I just happen to have in my back pocket. Perhaps I may respond in two ways. I shall talk about the implications for the National Insurance Fund and then talk about the baseline figure for national insurance contributions. If the noble Lord wants additional information beyond what is in the Government Actuary's report, I shall have to write to him. He will understand that.
The surplus balance in the fund over the minimum recommended level is projected to remain at its current level of £11 billion until 2005 or 2006. Thereafter, it will fall. By 2009 or 2010 it will need either a Treasury grant or an increase in national insurance contributions to bring it back up again. That is under a prices uprating scenario, which is the one on which we are currently operating.

1109
In terms of the baseline figures on national insurance contributions, the joint employer/employee national insurance rates are currently 20.25 per cent, excluding the 1.95 per cent in respect of the NHS. In 2001–02, that will fall to 19.95 per cent, because the employer rate is due to fall by 0.3 per cent. In 2002–03, it will be 19.85 per cent, because the employer contribution rate is due to fall by a further 0.1 per cent. With price upratings in 2010–11, the joint employer/employee rate would have to be approximately 21 per cent as opposed to the baseline rate of 19.85 per cent; that is with price upratings. I could go on into 2030 but that is too far ahead. I have not given our assumptions about earnings because we are not intending to earnings link benefits, but I can give that information if the noble Lord wishes. I hope the noble Lord thinks that I have met my point and that he can see the size of the fund, what the baseline figure would be, and therefore what the potential shortfall could be.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I was really making a much simpler point. The effect of paying higher benefits is to lead to an increase in contributions. At the same time as the Chancellor announced an increase in benefits, he did not refer to the increase in contributions but left it to other people in a more obscure way. What happened this year is that the increase in contributions for a substantial number of people, as a result of the way in which the system works, was about three times the rate of inflation. I am still not clear why the Government did that. It is a cause for concern for those people. I have not yet heard any justification for it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to the contributions of the self-employed?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am referring to employee contributions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is no longer a DSS matter but I shall follow up the noble Lord's question and seek to answer it in writing. If he finds that unsatisfactory, perhaps he will put down a Question for Written Answer. The information I have is what I might call the global information because this matter is now one for the Treasury and the Inland Revenue.
I turn to the election speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He said that after looking at the record of the existing Labour Government the prospect of a future Labour Government filled him with dread because the CSA was worse as a result of our reforms. I have to say that the noble Earl cuts me to the quick. When we took over, only about 65 per cent of parents received what they should have been receiving. The figure is now well over 70 per cent. As a result of these reforms I hope to push the figure beyond 85 per cent. There are 1 million kids out there not getting money basically because some fathers do not wish to pay, even though, by any test or formula, they can pay. I have been responsible for trying to change the system, as your Lordships have been kind enough to acknowledge, in order to ensure
1110
that children who are poor and needy are not denied the money. The noble Earl suggests that making any change to that system is somehow to worsen the CSA. I just think that we are living in different worlds.
I am concerned about the wellbeing of the child and not about fathers who, in their anger, want their day in court. That may be the difference between the noble Earl and myself. We shall have to disagree on this issue, but the record of 1 million children denied on average £30 a week of the money they should be receiving, which would make all the difference in floating them out of quite severe hardship into a higher degree of comfort, is deplorable. I had hoped that the noble Earl would be joining us in fighting for the child against some fathers—some non-resident parents, including women—who have sought in the past to walk away from those responsibilities. We are making it easy for them to pay in future and therefore there should be no problems about the obscurity of the formula as a device or alibi by which to avoid responsibility.
The noble Earl's second charge was that the lone parent situation is worse. Again, I do not know where the noble Earl has been in terms of what we have been doing on the New Deal. Around 200,000 lone parents have joined the New Deal. One lone parent said to me the other day, "I am off to work and free at last". She now feels that no longer is life happening to her; she is running her life. The combination of the New Deal, the working families' tax credit, the childcare arrangements, the national childcare strategy and the training and skilling opportunities we are offering means that no longer will lone parents be given a giro cheque, be asked to endure on that amount for 16 years and then be kicked out into the labour market. We are seeking to work with their choices as to what they do. We are seeking to make those choices deliverable for them and on the terms they want.
The noble Earl said that the JSA is worse because of our policy of policing the unemployed. The number of jobs available is up and unemployment is at its lowest since the late 1970s. Youth unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent since 1997 and is at its lowest rate since 1974. I know that if youngsters have not had a job by the age of 21 they find it very difficult to enter the labour market. Long-term unemployment, particularly of older men, is down by 50 per cent. The noble Earl says that the situation of the Child Support Agency and of lone parents is worse. I say that we do not live in the same world—either the same mental world or the same practical world. I see people out there, going into work, increasing their income and taking control of their lives to the benefit of themselves and their families.
The noble Earl made a second major point and I understand his approach here. We need uprating above prices, not to deal only with poverty on benefits, but also to reduce inequality, a point which the noble Earl perhaps did not spell out in exactly those terms. I accept that argument. However, again, I would ask the noble Earl to look at the record. In practice, our increases for pensioners, our benefits increases for children, in particular younger children, our increases for disabled people who are entitled to the disability income guarantee and our increases for those with children who

1111
are in low paid work, receiving WFTC, have well exceeded even the increases that would have accrued from an earnings link. In practice, although we have had uprating by prices as the baseline, those groups which, in my view, are those most in need, have received increases in their real incomes not only well above prices but, in many cases, well above the levels that would have accrued had their benefits been earnings related. I dispute the noble Earl's assertion to the contrary.
The noble Earl went on to make the distinction—which I would accept—between those who are economically inactive as opposed to the claimant count. He is right to say that the problem facing all of us—including taxpayers—is not those people who are on benefit and seeking work and thus part of the claimant count, but those who have not been brought into the labour market. This comprises a large number of people—those with disabilities, in some cases lone parents and those on income support. These groups have been beached on to benefits which are low in comparison with wages in today's society. Obviously, people fare better in work. However, some are beached on benefits and can see no way of getting off that beach. What we are seeking to do is to provide the opportunities, support and skills for those who can and who wish to work to be able to do so. That includes disabled people, 1 million of whom say that they wish to work but are unable to do so. It applies also to lone parents, 90 per cent of whom have told us that they wish to work as and when they have child support arrangements in place.
I believe that, as a government, we are working with the grain of what people want. I refer not only to taxpayers, but those who are themselves the recipients of benefits. If I am wrong in that judgment, then the electorate will tell us as and when we come to the election. If the electorate believes instead the noble Lord's reading that the next Labour Government would fill them with dread, he will be vindicated at the ballot box. However, this is a record with which I am proud to be associated and one as regards which I hope to have the support and confidence of my department as well as my government in a forthcoming general election.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No.2) Order 2000
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heighamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order with the previous order that referred to pensions.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have to confess that I had not realised that. As I understand it, this order is
1112
concerned with occupational pensions. That is not what we were discussing earlier. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell me if I am right about that.
I believe that we are now referring to the order covering the guaranteed minimum pension increase. Is that not right?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this does not concern MIG or MFR, but rather GMP, which refers to occupational pensions contracted out of SERPS. I may be quite mistaken. Perhaps I should give the noble Baroness a moment to think about the matter. I shall declare an interest, as I have done on many previous occasions, as the chairman of an occupational pension scheme. I am puzzled by what the noble Baroness has just said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that this is always taken together with the uprating statement and forms a part of the general debate. However, if the noble Lord wishes to raise any particular points, I shall do my best to answer them. If I am unable to do so, I shall write to him.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we may be totally at loggerheads on this. I believe that this order is quite different from the other order. A few moments ago we were discussing the government uprating of state pensions and benefits of one kind or another. This order is not concerned with the uprating of government pensions, but rather concerns the uprating imposed by the Government on schemes which operated before 1997. These are occupational schemes and the order concerns the extent to which the occupational pension has to pay an increase and thus is only tenuously related to what the Government are doing. Indeed, the rates are quite different as well.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am slightly baffled about this. Perhaps I should read into the record the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order:
"Whereas the Secretary of State has reviewed the general level of prices obtaining in Great Britain for the period of 12 months commencing on 1st October 1999;
And whereas it appears to him that the general level of prices was greater by 3.3% at the end of that period than it was at the beginning of that period;
And whereas the draft of the following Order was laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House, now therefore the Secretary of State for Social Security … makes the following Order";
namely, that pensions will be raised by that amount as a part of the general uprating. These have always been taken together.

1113
I am a little wrong-footed by the noble Lord. The uprating by 3.3 per cent applies across the board and is therefore included.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may say that my recollection on this subject is the same as that of the Minister. On this point, we live in the same world.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister may be right in saying that this is the way in which this matter has been debated previously, but it seems to me that somewhat different issues are raised here. Perhaps I may put this question to her: who will pay for this increase?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that this will ensure that the core of an occupational scheme will contain a guaranteed minimum no less than a specified amount; effectively, it will be brought into line with the RPI. In that sense, it would depend on whether it was a money purchase scheme, but these would normally apply to a scheme which was a defined salary benefit. That means that there is a minimum standard of pension which it must meet in order to be eligible for the opted-out rebates from a private scheme, SERPS or any other scheme.
I do not see what is the issue here. Each year, guaranteed pensions better than SERPS must be uprated to reflect the standard of living, otherwise they would deteriorate in value. That is what the uprating order achieves: it ensures the core such that the national insurance rebates fund that guaranteed minimum core so that the occupational scheme is a valid and appropriate scheme. It is raised so that it does not lose its value. For that reason, it is uprated across the board. I am not sure what the noble Lord seeks to press me on here.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have said; namely, that on previous occasions this has been taken together with the previous order. That may be the tradition. Nonetheless, it is somewhat different, in as much as the previous order is concerned with government pensions. In effect, as the noble Baroness pointed out in our previous debate, it comes out of the national
1114
insurance fund. However, this order is a burden placed by the Government on occupational pension schemes It uprates not a government scheme, but an opted-out scheme. That, I believe, raises different issues. For example, how is that to be dealt with? What other burdens, in particular the change in advance corporation tax and so forth, have been imposed on occupational schemes? Given those questions, it seemed to me appropriate to deal with the order separately. That is why I was puzzled by what the noble Baroness said.
Perhaps the noble Baroness would answer only the simple question I put to her. We can then let it go at that and consider the matter later. Who will pay the 3 per cent? Let us deal only with that simple question.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if I am wrong on this then I shall write to the noble Lord, but my understanding is it is a question of whether a pension is backed by the pension promise. If it is backed by the pension promise—which is what a defined final salary scheme would constitute—then clearly the employer must pay. If it is a money purchase scheme, then that is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that his scheme is adequate. What this order does is interlock the level of national insurance rebates and the grounds on which they may be recyclable into the schemes, into personal pensions and occupational pensions, and obviously this interacts with SERPS. Where the commitment to delivering the pension promise lies will depend on the type of scheme, whether it is money purchase or final salary. If it is a defined salary scheme it will ultimately lie with the employer. When I last looked at this, more than half of all occupational pension schemes were in surplus—in many of them they were enjoying a holiday—and this would not be difficult to achieve.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I intervene briefly. We can take the matter no further today. As the noble Baroness said, it depends on the extent to which a particular scheme is in surplus. That, in turn, has been radically affected by the change which has been made in corporation tax. But let us leave it there and pursue it, if necessary, by way of oral questions or whatever.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Defence Diversification Agency
  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Elmhurst Park, Suffolk: Greenhouses
  Elmhurst Park, Suffolk: Greenhouses
  Veterinary Medicines: RPS Registration Fees for Agricultural Merchants and Saddlers
  Veterinary Medicines: RPS Registration Fees for Agricultural Merchants and Saddlers
  Overseas Territories: Corporal and Capital Punishment
  Overseas Territories: Corporal and Capital Punishment
  Moses Room: Hearing Aid Induction Loop
  Moses Room: Hearing Aid Induction Loop
  Council of Europe and WEU Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  Council of Europe and WEU Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  Family Law Act 1996: Information Meetings Provisions
  Family Law Act 1996: Information Meetings Provisions
  Northern Ireland: Civil Justice Reform Group Report
  Northern Ireland: Civil Justice Reform Group Report
  Marriage and Relationship Support
  Marriage and Relationship Support
  Local Authority Publicity: Code of Recommended Practice
  Local Authority Publicity: Code of Recommended Practice
  Litter Collection on Motorways and Trunk Roads
  Litter Collection on Motorways and Trunk Roads