Sitting of 18 January 2001

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Thursday 25 January.

  SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL
  Resolved,
  That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of the Spoliation Advisory Panel in respect of a painting now in the possession of the Tate Gallery by the Right honourable Sir David Hirst.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Trade Union Recognition
    Mr. John Healey: What assessment he has made of the operation of the new provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 setting up the statutory arrangements for trade union recognition. [144527]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The statutory recognition procedure has been in force since 6 June last year, and so far 38 applications for recognition have been received by the central arbitration committee. Early indications suggest that the procedure is working well and is becoming an accepted feature of the employment relations system.
    Mr. Healey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week's TUC report shows that the number of new recognition deals signed by unions in the past 12 months is double that of the year before? In its northern region alone, the Transport and General Workers Union has signed or is in the process of signing 16 new voluntary agreements. Does that not demonstrate that the extreme hostility displayed by the Tories throughout the Act's passage through Parliament shows that the party is as out
    492
    of touch with the modern employer as it is with the aspirations of ordinary working people, who simply want fairness and protection in the workplace?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He was a very active member of the Standing Committee that considered the legislation and he knows that it aims to bring stability to collective bargaining. Not only do the Tories want to return to boom and bust, but they want to return to the them-and-us situation of the 1980s and 1990s which plunged the country into industrial unrest. The aim of the new procedure is voluntary engagement, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the TUC report published on Monday shows that there have been a record number of recognition deals—159 covering 58,000 workers in the 13 months from November 1999 to November 2000. That is a sign of consensus and of a voluntary approach to these matters. Stability has returned to industrial relations.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Minister explain why the number of strikes called in the past 12 months has increased by over a fifth?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is anxious to return to the days of the Government whom he supported, when industrial unrest was created and trade unions were not recognised. We are now seeing a greater spirit of partnership between employers and employees. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that 44 of the top 50 UK companies recognise trade unions. Working in partnership is the way forward for a Britain with a stable economy and stable industrial relations.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recognised trade unions are important in ensuring that British industry meets its obligation to create wealth without damaging health? Will she consider bringing together trade unions, employers, insurance companies and lawyers in the construction industry, the steel industry and, in particular, the power industry with a view to facilitating the introduction of sectoral no-fault liability schemes for asbestos victims?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that underpins the Government's attitude to industrial relations, which is that the spirit of partnership should be fostered. I shall reflect on his point and get back to him.

    Consumer Protection
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on recent steps he has taken to ensure consumers receive value for money. [144528]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): We are ensuring that consumers get better value for money through stronger protection in such areas as distance selling and

    493
    e-commerce, better advice through consumer support networks and, most important, a stronger and more effective competition regime.
    Mr. Dobbin: House buyers are consumers. Can my hon. Friend offer them some protection and an honest deal from unscrupulous cowboy builders?
    Dr. Howells: Ultimately, any disagreement is a civil dispute between a customer and a builder. However, colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have developed a quality mark scheme to help consumers find reliable builders and workers in allied trades such as plumbing and roofing. The scheme ensures that quality mark builders are technically competent, possess relevant qualifications and display financial probity.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that one of the worst examples of a failure to give business and private consumers value for money is in the banking sector, where consumers are being ripped off by up to £5 billion a year, according to the Cruickshank report? Will he explain how the Government intend to implement the report's recommendation that mergers involving a major bank—such as the present merger between Lloyds and Abbey National, which affects the current account market—will automatically be referred to the Competition Commission? Will he assure the House that the fact that the banks are helping to establish the Post Office universal bank will not lead to their being given an easy ride on competition policy?
    Dr. Howells: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, competition matters are judged and decided by the Office of Fair Trading. There will be no automatic referrals. We consider the judgment of the Office of Fair Trading, under the director general, as the most valuable source of information. In most cases, we accept it.
    Mr. Frank Roy: On the issue of ensuring that consumers receive value for money, my hon. Friend will be aware that I presented a petition to the Office of Fair Trading which bore more than 20,000 names. It demanded an investigation into the rip-off involving the holiday fuel prices charged by holiday firms. May I ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading when an inquiry will take place and when we can have the findings that ensue so that we can finally put an end to the rip-off of holiday price fixing, and especially fuel supplements?
    Dr. Howells: Like my hon. Friend, I am determined that holidaymakers should get good value for money. I know that he has been waiting for answers to the questions which he put to the director general in writing last July. Successive directors general have promised him responses. Now that my hon. Friend has raised the matter with me, he can be assured that I will raise it with the director general and ask him to contact my hon. Friend immediately.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): But why are the Government undermining consumer rights by persecuting traders who are selling fruit and vegetables
    494
    off market stalls in pounds and ounces? Why did the Government not even try to extend the directive, which would have permitted the continuing use of pounds and ounces in the way the previous Government succeeded in doing in 1989? The Government did not even ask for that. Why did they have such a warped sense of priority that they failed completely to bring forward their promised consumer Bill, which would have clamped down on rogue and dishonest traders, while at the same time, and instead, they are persecuting honest traders whose only crime is to serve their customers in units which they ask for and understand?
    Dr. Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was the Leader of the Opposition who signed up to the directive in the first place. The previous Government agreed with the Commission that twin pricing, so that metric and imperial pricing could operate alongside each other in shops, would be phased out in 1999, but the Labour Government secured a 10-year extension to it. It is indicative that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who has a much bigger voice than appetite, could manage only a quarterpounder—he could not manage even a Big Mac.

    Tyre Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent discussions he has had with the UK tyre manufacturing industry regarding UK production. [144529]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): As the main tyre manufacturers are major inward investors into the UK, the Department keeps in close contact with them both at a regional and national level in the UK.
    Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Michelin announced last year that the production of tyres at its Stoke factory would cease. He will also be aware that over the Christmas and new year period, cuts in production and output were announced by Goodyear at Wolverhampton. Does he recognise that in my constituency, where there is a Michelin factory, and in others there is considerable concern about the future of the tyre industry? Will he give an assurance that he believes it is essential that we continue to manufacture tyres in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is right. Global restructuring has obviously affected some British companies, and Michelin is but one of them. I remind the House that tyre production was worth in excess of £1 billion in 1999, and there were about £800 million worth of exports. There are still more than 8,000 people employed in the industry. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and the Department will be commissioning a competitive study to examine the entire rubber industry, and especially the tyre sector, where electronics are playing a greater part in production. With our research establishment, we want to ensure that we are at the leading edge of technology. Companies such as Pirelli are showing the way by introducing a robotics line in the UK. I think that we will be moving up the value-added chain in the tyre sector.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Given the importance of exports to the UK tyre manufacturing

    495
    industry, and given that since its introduction two years ago the euro has declined sharply against the pound sterling, should not the policy of the Government, on reflection, have been to try to ease the burden of taxes and regulations on the industry, rather than bringing about the exact opposite?
    Mr. Caborn: The way in which the Government have assisted industry, by creating a strong macro-economic framework and, at the micro level, introducing tax advantages for many parts of our manufacturing base, has been welcomed by manufacturing, including the tyre manufacturers. Three of the five major manufacturers of tyres are in the UK. They look to the Government to give the lead, as we shall do, on a foresight programme to develop new technology for those industries. The euro has not affected the global reorganisation that Michelin and others are undertaking. We want to help such industries to manage in the most effective way the changes involved in globalisation.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: But does not my right hon. Friend believe, as I do, that if a company such as Michelin closes down tyre production in the UK, or General Motors closes down car production, or Orange behaves badly as a telecoms operator, we should encourage the British consumer to be discriminatory, to buy products that are manufactured in our own country, to favour industries that stay and manufacture in the UK, and to penalise those that do not?
    Mr. Caborn: I do not think that in this day and age that would be the right way forward. We look to the consumer to buy the best quality at the best price. The Government support the continued management of the globalisation of trade through organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. I remind my hon. Friend that in the past decade, that policy has enhanced world trade by 25 or 26 per cent. We believe that that is the way to go—to expand the global economy in a managed way that will produce a good result for the consumer. We are doing that through leading-edge technology in many industries.

    Universal Bank
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): What the cost of setting up and running the Post Office universal bank will be to (a) the Post Office and (b) the Government. [144530]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Universal banking services will be funded by the Government and the banks. Until the full details of universal banking services have been settled, it is too early to say what Government support may be required.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Not content with attacking people who sell in pounds and ounces, why are the Government attacking another group of traders—sub-post offices, which are shutting at the rate of almost two a day because of the Treasury-inspired decision, which the right hon. Gentleman's Department should have stopped, to remove about 40 per cent. of their income which they derive through the present system of encashment of benefits and pensions at post offices? Why has the right
    496
    hon. Gentleman done nothing to stop that, and why will he not even tell the House the cost of his alternative plans? We know that the costs are mounting. Why does he not tell us what they are? If they exceed the eventual Treasury savings, why does he not just call the whole thing off and permit the vital local network of post offices to go on serving its customers and its local pensioners as it always has done, without the additional and wholly unnecessary threat from the Government?
    Mr. Byers: Perhaps the House would like some facts, rather than relying on the right hon. Gentleman's prejudice. The highest rate of post office closures took place under a Conservative Government. Automated credit transfer, which the right hon. Gentleman blames for closures, will not be introduced until 2003 and has nothing to do with the present situation. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would applaud the fact that on 20 December the six main high street banks reached an agreement with the Government for universal banking services. I am confident that within the next few weeks we will sign a memorandum of understanding with those banks, and with other high street banks as well. What the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept is that the Government are giving new hope and a new future to the post office network. He does not like that, but that is the reality, providing new banking services for consumers which will also benefit the network.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: I urge my right hon. Friend to be cautious about the term "universal bank". I do so on behalf of the Universal building society based in Newcastle in my constituency, which, I believe my right hon. Friend is aware, is concerned about that.
    I congratulate the Government on their initiative in creating a payment method in the control of the Post Office which can deliver benefit payments and make direct debit payments, making the payment of bills cheaper for a much larger number of people, but I urge my right hon. Friend to be a little cautious in his dealings with the high street banks, which may well use this as an opportunity to secure a deal that will not be favourable to the Post Office and its prospective customers in future. When he drafts the memorandum of understanding, will he be careful to avoid a rip-off by the high street banks?
    Mr. Byers: I take counsel from my hon. Friend. We shall need to look carefully at the details of the agreement that we enter into with the high street banks. The important point is that, as a result of the agreement that we have struck, two types of bank account will be operated through the Post Office, both providing a Post Office-based solution. There will be the basic bank account, provided by the banks themselves, and a Post Office bank account. The good news, particularly for people on low incomes, is that both accounts will offer direct debit facilities with utilities, which will lead to a reduction in the amount that individuals pay. Most of us are aware that families on low incomes, who at the moment do not have such benefits, pay a disproportionately high share of their income in fuel and other utility payments. As a result of this initiative, the Government will reduce those costs and ensure that many

    497
    people who at the moment are financially excluded will have the benefits that most hon. Members simply take for granted.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: In his negotiations with the banks, the Secretary of State must have suggested a figure of public money that the Treasury was willing to make available to the universal bank. That figure cannot be commercial in confidence because, clearly, it is public money. Surely the Secretary of State can now share with the House the amount that the Government are prepared to commit to ensuring that the universal bank is a success.
    Mr. Byers: We want the other banks to come alongside the six that have signed up, because that will mean more income for the Government, so the negotiations are not yet complete, but when they are, yes, of course, that information will be made available to the House. Those negotiations have not yet been concluded, so most right hon. and hon. Members will understand why that information cannot yet be disclosed to the House.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many car workers will want to use the Post Office's banking services, and will he take this opportunity roundly to condemn CGNU for its decision to ban the sale of mortgage protection insurance services to MG Rover employees? After the chairman of Rover has been to see the company, will he haul it in to ask it what it thinks it is playing at?
    Mr. Byers: I hope that when CGNU has had the opportunity of hearing from John Towers at first hand, it will be able to reconsider its policy on that matter.
    Mr. Brian Cotter: In response to a question in December, the Minister said that cost would be a consideration in choosing the software system for the universal bank, implying that the cheapest system might be chosen. As there have in the past been many high-profile examples of computer systems failing, will he assure the House that the system chosen will be the most effective, and that cost will not be the deciding factor? Who will be responsible for the universal banking system—the Post Office, the banks or the Government?
    Mr. Byers: I think I told the House that cost would be a factor to be taken into account; the situation would be rather unusual if that were not the case. However, it will not be the only factor. We want to achieve value for money, which will involve looking at the quality of the service to be offered. Universal banking services will be a post office-based solution, and the memorandum of understanding will state clearly the various responsibilities of the key stakeholders—the Government, the Post Office and the banks themselves. If the hon. Gentleman can wait just a few weeks more, we will be able to publish the memorandum of understanding, and he will be able to see the details.
    The important point for the post office network is that, as a result of the Government's initiatives, there will be universal banking services, every post office will be computerised by Easter, and Government general practitioners will start in pilots in March this year. The Government are acting for the Post Office, which is in
    498
    total contrast with the approach of the Opposition, who simply let the market determine what would happen to the network and did not give any real hope for the future.

    EU Information and Consultation Directive
    Mr. David Kidney: What recent representations he has received on the proposed European directive on information and consultation. [144531]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have received various representations on the proposed European directive. The Government remain opposed to the directive which, we believe, contains a number of weaknesses. However, we believe that the time is right to consider our own United Kingdom arrangements in that area. I have therefore written today to the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, inviting them to take part in a review of existing collective redundancy legislation and, in particular, to consider what more should be done to promote effective consultation.
    Mr. Kidney: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer, and am very pleased that my question elicited that constructive announcement. However, does he accept that, in the United Kingdom today, when workers' livelihoods are at stake in negotiations involving their employers, they really ought to know and be consulted about that, rather than first hear of their redundancies on the morning news bulletin? Will he give an assurance that the process that he described will result in a law that makes good practices on consultation and information routine everywhere in Britain?
    Mr. Byers: I agree that it is simply unacceptable for hard-working and dedicated workers to be kept in the dark about the future intentions of their employers. We therefore need to engage constructively with both sides of industry, which we are doing by inviting the TUC and CBI to participate. I am confident that they will both respond positively, as it is not in anyone's interest to have a situation in which the work force do not feel that they are part of the undertaking for which they work.
    Yesterday evening, I had the pleasure of helping to launch the TUC Partnership Institute, which aims to bring together both sides of business in a constructive way—not as a soft option or a quick fix, but as a way for both sides to work together. That is a different approach to the workplace, which we have tried to create with the legislation that we have put through. It is about moving away from the conflict that the Opposition tried to promote in the workplace; it recognises that we will achieve a lot more if we work together in a real sense of partnership and consensus.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: When the Secretary of State next visits Europe, will he have a word with our continental partners about how they implement directives, and especially this directive? On the continent, people have a healthy, not cynical, attitude to European directives, and believe that they are meant for guidance. For instance, one can go into any marketplace in France

    499
    and sometimes hear market traders hurling out their wares in pre-revolutionary weights and measurements or livres. Why not? Laissez-faire, laissez-passer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a bit wide of the question.
    Mr. Byers: I would not have expected anything else of the hon. Gentleman. We have looked carefully at the proposed European directive, which is flawed in several important areas and is not an appropriate vehicle to be imposed directly on the UK System. For example, our whole system of corporate structures is quite different from that on the continent. However, in many respects, the directive reflects the continental system of corporate governance, not that in the United Kingdom. The directive is not appropriate for several reasons, but the issue is important and we should deal with it in our domestic setting.
    Ms Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement of the review of workers' rights to consultation. I hope that the review will prompt fresh legislation, which might be called the Vauxhall workers Bill. Such legislation should ensure that no other workers suffer the agony of being told by telephone or radio that their jobs are to go and that no other employer treats workers as shabbily as General Motors treated the Vauxhall workers at Luton. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that workers have continuing consultation and are provided with adequate information, so that proper partnership and dialogue are in place before closures occur, rather than afterwards?
    Mr. Byers: I was grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to see me before Christmas a number of people from the Vauxhall work force at Luton who had been affected by General Motors' decision. They made a number of important points, but their main point, which they constantly pushed, concerned the way in which General Motors had treated them. Just over two years ago, they had entered into a partnership agreement, but the company had not honoured it. They felt that they should have been involved in the final decision. Those factors, as well as other incidents of which hon. Members are aware, have been a key driving force in our decision to launch the initiative announced today. It is unacceptable for people to learn about their fate on a local radio news station. That is not the right way to do business at the beginning of the 21st century; there must be a better way. In discussions with the TUC and the CBI, I want to find ways in which we can map out in the real spirit of partnership an approach that is appropriate for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Bercow: There is, of course, a world of difference between the Government introducing legislation and the European Union poking its oversized nose into the matter. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in addition to being opposed by the Government, the present form of the directive is also vigorously opposed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and the British Chambers of Commerce? Is he aware that his predecessor, the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, made a solemn
    500
    pledge in front of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 4 November 1998, when he said that the British Government would prevent the introduction of the directive in this country? Does he understand, therefore, that if the Government now sell out to the German view and accept the directive's application to companies with only 50 employees, it will be the latest example given by them of perfidy and betrayal in respect of corporate business?
    Mr. Byers: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would speak up, so that I can hear him.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: The country will have heard him.
    Mr. Byers: I pity the country.
    We have made it clear that we share the concerns about the detail of the directive that have been expressed by many of the organisations mentioned. However, engagement by the work force with the decisions that are taken by their company is an important issue that must be addressed. We do not agree with the detail of the directive, but we feel that it relates to an issue that can be dealt with in the United Kingdom setting. If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) agrees that such an issue exists, he should welcome the fact that we are dealing with it in domestic legislation. That is what I am announcing today. There is an issue that needs to be addressed and I think it can be dealt with more quickly and effectively in the domestic setting.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the treatment of the Luton workers caused a great deal of anger among Labour Back Benchers and has given rise to a growing view that the Government should throw their weight behind the European directive, notwithstanding its flaws? I am very pleased to learn from him that the Government are taking the matter seriously. We will want to consider his proposals very closely.
    Mr. Byers: It is only right that that should happen. Some of the European directives, including the works councils directive, which we have endorsed, contain flaws and are not working as effectively in industry as we would like them to. There are instances of similar problems elsewhere. When General Motors made its announcement about Luton, it also announced the loss of about 2,000 jobs in Germany.
    The work force there was not consulted or given information about the decision. The system in continental Europe does not work as effectively as most of us would like. It is therefore more appropriate to consider what is needed in the United Kingdom domestic setting and take suitable action.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that no legislation is needed? Will he confirm that the record that successive Governments achieved over 20 years through our flexible labour market was envied in Europe, and that industrial relations should be tackled on the basis of a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee?
    Mr. Byers: I think there is no problem with a flexible labour market, provided that minimum standards are

    501
    attached to it to ensure that individuals are not exploited. The Conservative party tried to take us back to the Victorian approach to industrial relations, of master and servant. Conservative Members continue to support that. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is open about it, as can be seen if people take the time and trouble to read his writings on such matters. The Conservative party wishes to return to the master-servant relationship.
    However, the Labour party believes that minimum standards, such as the rights to paid leave in a family emergency, to paid holidays and to a national minimum wage are basic entitlements in any decent, civilised society at the beginning of the 21st century. We are providing those entitlements; the Conservative party would take them all away.

    Manufacturing (North-West)
    Mr. David Crausby: What assessment he has made of the recent performance of manufacturing industry in the north-west of England. [144532]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The performance of manufacturing industry in the north-west is being continually assessed by markets operating in conditions of free and fair competition.
    The Government are providing the economic stability, which I mentioned earlier, that allows companies to plan ahead with confidence.
    Mr. Crausby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that output, exports and employment have fallen in the past four months in the north-west of England? BAE Systems is threatening thousands more redundancies. Things are therefore becoming difficult, to say the least. Bolton has suffered wave after wave of engineering redundancies and two textile factories have closed recently. It is crucial to tackle the scattering of redundancies constructively. What can my right hon. Friend do to reassure me that he will protect the vital north-west industrial base?
    Mr. Caborn: The Government have been doing that through several measures since we came to office in 1997. As my hon. Friend knows, we asked the business-led regional development agencies to consider the real structural weaknesses in the regional economies. Those are now beginning to be addressed.
    I remind my hon. Friend that the number of manufacturing jobs has increased. For example, approximately 7,000 jobs have been created in fibre optic communications; BAE Systems created 1,700 jobs in Wales. The picture is not all doom and gloom. My hon. Friend knows that more people are in employment now than for many years. The strong macro-economic framework that the Chancellor has created for manufacturing bodes well for the future.
    That does not mean that we are complacent; we know that we must move up the value added chain. The regional development agencies and Government offices working with regional partners are addressing those matters.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister says that it is not all doom and gloom, but there is too much
    502
    doom and gloom in manufacturing in the north-west. Last year, there were several hundred redundancies in east Lancashire alone. There is currently the prospect of perhaps 2,000 job losses in BAE Systems. We have been told that they will probably fall on the military side. That will affect Samlesbury in my constituency, and Warton, which is not so many miles away. The ripple effect on contractors and small businesses in the area will be devastating. What action will the Government take to ensure that those manufacturing jobs are protected?
    Mr. Caborn: Even as recently as two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was lobbying hard for the Hawk in India, and we are hopeful that there will be an order from there. In the wider context of BAE Systems, it is a changing scene and we must manage change. BAE Systems is one of the better companies in this country, and is in constant dialogue with the Government. We can assist it in developing technologies and ensuring that the skills base is commensurate with its needs. We must manage change in these modern, globalised times, and we will do that with responsible employers. I emphasise again that there are more people employed now than there were in 1997, when we came to power.
    Maria Eagle: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the work force and management at Jaguar Halewood on the edge of my constituency—it has its front door in my constituency—which is bucking the national trend in car manufacturing and has just taken on 500 extra workers to build the X400? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that manufacturing on Merseyside is in a very healthy condition?
    Mr. Caborn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I remind her that in 1997 £3 billion was invested in car manufacturing in the United Kingdom, which created 9,800 new jobs. Jaguar has been part of that, as my hon. Friend said. Success is being achieved, especially on Merseyside, where partnerships are working well.
    Mr. Richard Page: It is understandable, with a general election coming, that the Minister's answer had a tad more spin than substance. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) put his finger on the problem. Unemployment is increasing in the north-west in sectors such as aerospace, textiles and food processing, in which there have been serious job losses. Is the Minister aware that the TUC has extreme concerns about trends in the area? Is he also aware that the CBI, in its latest survey, says that the north-west has had the second greatest loss of business confidence? Is he not worried, like us, that the Government are creating a north-south divide?
    When will the Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry stand up for manufacturing and argue against the raft of regulations that is driving business down? When will they stand up for the sector in the face of the climate change levy, which will cost thousands of jobs? When will the Minister speak up for manufacturing?
    Mr. Caborn: I do not know whether a "tad" is imperial or metric: perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us how he measures it. Clearly, he has forgotten what was happening

    503
    three years ago when we came to power and there was real concern in the north-west. What has happened since? Yes, we have increased employment in the north-west. Yes, with partners there, we are finding solutions to the long-term problems with which the Tories left us. We need no lectures from the Opposition on manufacturing and the development of the economy.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What plans he has to reform the method of setting the figure for the national minimum wage. [144533]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have no such plans. The Government have confidence in the independent Low Pay Commission. As the minimum wage is here to stay under this Government, we have decided to make the Low Pay Commission a permanent body.
    Mr. Corbyn: Clearly everyone welcomes the principle of a national minimum wage, and I congratulate the Government on introducing it, but does the Minister agree that the current level is far too low? It is extremely difficult for anyone to live and survive on that level of pay. Would it not be better if the national minimum wage were immediately raised to £5 an hour—which would be something approaching a wage on which people could live—and thereafter increased in line with earnings, rather than left to a quango to decide? The poorest workers could then share in the rising prosperity of the rest of the workers in this country.
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend should not underestimate the positive effect that the introduction of the minimum wage, even at its present level, has achieved. The figures that the Government submitted to the Low Pay Commission in our evidence show clearly that, for the first time in many years, the bottom 10 per cent. of income earners have had a higher increase in their average earnings than the top 10 per cent. Earnings in the north-east and Wales—traditionally low-paid areas—have increased by a larger amount than those anywhere else in the country, so real benefits are coming through.
    I ask my hon. Friend to consider the remit that I have given the Low Pay Commission for this year, which makes it clear that when the commission considers an increase, it is not restricted to considering inflation. This year, it will also be able to take into account the increase in earnings.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that self-employed people such as sub-postmasters and postmistresses are not covered by the minimum wage legislation? A Post Office report sent to Members of Parliament shows that the Government's decision to force pensioners and others to have their payments paid into a bank will result in a £550 million loss to the sub-post offices, and that 20,000 sub-postmasters and postmistresses will find their incomes driven below the level of the minimum wage—unless the Secretary of State can replace that money.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, in response to an earlier question, that the maximum that the banks will be coerced into paying is £125 million? Will he tell us by
    504
    what authority he will require them to pay that, and whether all the other money will come from the taxpayer—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not have a lot to do with the minimum wage.
    Mr. Lilley: It has a lot to do with it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman that it does not have a lot to do with the minimum wage. I call Mr. Davidson.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware of an economic collapse following the introduction of the minimum wage, of the kind predicted by Conservative Members? That certainly does not seem to have happened in my part of the country. Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging for the level of the minimum wage to be raised, so as to reduce the amount of Government expenditure, such as the working families tax credit, that effectively subsidises bad employers? We should not be paying out Government money to subsidise poor employers.
    May I also say that I deprecate those who would try to hold down the level of the minimum wage to £5? It really ought to be far more than that.
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is as generous as ever in these matters. It is probably better for the Low Pay Commission to consider any increase in the light of the labour market and the economic conditions at the time.
    It is a bit rich for Conservative Members, who campaigned against the introduction of the national minimum wage, to be critical when certain groups are not included. The important point, which reflects points raised by my hon. Friends, is that the national minimum wage under this Government is here to stay. The Low Pay Commission will be there to recommend increases when it is appropriate to do so. We must ensure that the successful way in which the provision has been implemented since April last year can be continued, and that millions of families can continue to benefit from having the dignity of work that is properly paid, and having a safety net below which no one should fall in terms of the income that they receive for their hard labour.

    Intellectual Property
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What guidance he gives to businesses about protection of their intellectual property; and if he will make a statement. [144534]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): Advice on intellectual property matters is delivered by the Patent Office to a wide audience of inquirers, including business. The Patent Office produces a comprehensive range of literature and has a well established central inquiry unit. Guidance is also available in downloadable form via the internet—if the House can contemplate putting up with such a vile adjective as "downloadable".
    Mr. Robertson: Intellectual property theft is estimated to cost industry and business about £8 billion a year,

    505
    and there is also evidence of a link with organised crime. The Government consulted on this issue 12 months ago and said that they would introduce legislation to strengthen the legal position. Will the Minister say when he intends to do so?
    Dr. Howells: We certainly have been trying to pull together all the enforcement agencies and have formed the Anti-counterfeiting Alliance, in which intellectual property rights play a big part. We shall certainly legislate when we have finished reviewing the situation, although views and perspectives on intellectual property rights in developing countries are different from those in the advanced and industrialised world. However, we are mindful of the dangers of not tightening up intellectual property safeguards as the scams multiply out there in the marketplace.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply because I want to ask about consideration of the new intellectual property rights legislation. Will he ensure that we re-examine the definition of what constitutes intellectual property and separate design from discovery? In particular, I should be grateful if United Kingdom legislation did not go further down the path that has led to the exploitation of the AIDS epidemic in South Africa, where intellectual property rights and patents are being used to deny access to medical care to the millions of HIV sufferers in sub-Saharan Africa.
    Dr. Howells: We are very keen that intellectual property rights should accrue to people who have developed new products honestly and as a result of scientific endeavour and engineering expertise. We are certainly not in the business of allowing any multinational corporation to exploit any terrible situation, such as that which my hon. Friend describes, in Africa or anywhere else.

    Regulation
    Mr. Anthony Steen: What assessment he has made of the cost of regulations and directives emanating from the European Union on small business enterprise in the United Kingdom in each of the past three years. [144535]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all legislation has to undergo a regulatory impact assessment, which does not differentiate the sources of that legislation. Recently revised guidelines on RIAs emphasise the need to think small first in drawing up regulations. On the European aspect, the Government have been successful, through their policy of positive engagement in Europe and through the Lisbon economic summit, in developing the charter for small business, which puts considerable emphasis on the need to improve the regulatory environment not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe.
    Mr. Steen: Small businesses are the engine for economic growth in this country, but is the Minister aware of the on-cost to them of enforcing the myriad rules and regulations coming from Europe? That makes us much
    506
    less competitive than many other European countries, which do not enforce the rules and regulations on their small businesses as efficiently and effectively as we do. Will she consider perhaps introducing a local appeal mechanism so that small firms that feel aggrieved by officialdom and the enforcement of regulations can appeal to the local magistrates court for a view as to whether rules and regulations from Europe are being over-zealously pursued?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman suggests yet another layer of bureaucracy and yet another on-cost for small firms. He seems to have failed to notice that employment in this country is at its highest, at just under 28 million. A million jobs haw been created since May 1997 and nearly three quarters of people of working age are employed. The data on VAT registration suggest that business start-ups are at historically high levels. That is a consequence of the economic stability generated by Government policy and a consequence of the move towards completing the single market.
    Single market legislation alone has created an environment whereby there is one set of rules instead of 15 different sets for 15 different countries. The Government are committed to reducing the regulatory impact on small firms and to ensuring that small firms in this country can benefit from the biggest domestic market in the world—the European Union, which has 350 million consumers.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Opposition Members and small firms that those who whine and bleat that regulations are wrong per se are themselves wrong? A lot of the regulations that we must insist on keeping protect health and safety and basic, fundamental employment rights. Will my right hon. Friend also make it clear that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and those who claim to represent small firms have got it wrong if they are prepared to sell the basic rights of ordinary workers?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Conservative Members are anxious to concentrate on the costs of regulation; they never concentrate on the benefits. Every time a consumer picks up a can or packet in a supermarket and sees a sell-by date, it is a direct consequence of our membership of the European Union.
    We should look objectively at the levels of regulation in this country—regulation that helps people to enjoy a much better standard of living. A regular Institute of Management development survey asks businesses to describe their perception of regulation in different countries. The latest results, for 1999–2000, show that the United Kingdom ranks second among G7 countries in terms of its regulatory environment, just behind Canada and ahead of the United States.
    We impose sensible regulation, and it has benefits. Yes, there are costs, but we will reduce them, and we will certainly ensure that the people of this country enjoy the benefits.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: As I draw myself up to my full imperial height of five foot six, and

    507
    a quarter, may I request from the Minister an answer that we failed to secure from her hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs?
    The Minister's noble Friend Lord Haskel has said:
    the Government do not intend that people shall be locked up simply because they do not use metric units of measurement … It is where local authorities find evidence of fraud or the consumer being misled that such matters can be brought before the court.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 1998; Vol. 585, c. 742.]
    Was the Minister's colleague right? Without giving a judgment on the precise details of the Sunderland court case, will the Minister none the less agree that it results from an absurd and unnecessary prosecution? There was no consumer complaint, and the only victims in the case are freedom and common sense.
    Mrs. Liddell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise the matter, not least because it is still before the courts, but also because the regulation was introduced by the Government whom he supported.
    I am happy to rise to my full height of 1.6 m, which is 5 ft 4 in—and as you will know, Mr. Speaker, "guid gear comes in wee bulk".

    Energy Market
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What measures he is taking to ensure the liberalisation of the energy market. [144536]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government have completed the passage of the Utilities Act 2000. We seek to secure full competition in the supply of gas and electricity and in the generation of electricity, with the benefits being passed on to consumers, while protecting disadvantaged customers and the environment.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I know that, especially in cold weather like this, my right hon. Friend shares my anger about the millions of households left in fuel poverty by the Conservative Government's neglect of that important policy area. What steps is she taking to ensure that the liberalised energy market works as well as possible for the fuel poor?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of this Government's first moves was to reduce VAT on fuel, a particularly punitive tax that was imposed on the poorest members of society. There are 35,000
    508
    excess deaths in winter that are attributable to the cold. That is why ending fuel poverty is a priority for the present Government.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that the benefits of competition are not yet fairly shared by everyone. The Government are addressing that in a number of ways: there is Ofgem's social action plan, and several industry initiatives have been taken. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is today announcing a new initiative from the energy company Innogy—a £10 million programme called "health through warmth", which will potentially help more than 20,000 households in England and Wales to make their homes more energy-efficient so that they can stay warmer at lower cost. [Interruption.] You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that Conservative Members have no interest in these matters. They had no interest in them for 18 years. This Government have not just an interest, but a commitment.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Many in the electricity and gas industries attribute the recent doubling of the wholesale gas price to the interconnector, and to the Government's failure to achieve a liberalisation of the gas market in Europe; but given the gas price increase, how helpful does the Minister think it is to British industry to make it suffer the additional costs of another new tax on its energy bills from 1 April this year, following the imposition of the climate change levy?
    If the Minister really does care about the competitiveness of British industry—and she should note that employment has fallen this month, for the first time—should she not join us in calling on the Treasury to scrap this expensive and highly damaging new tax?
    Mrs. Liddell: The Government have been keeping a close watch on the progress of gas prices in the past few months, and if there is any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, we shall not hesitate to take action on it. As for the climate change levy, the hon. Gentleman seems to ignore completely the responsibilities that we have not only as a Government but as members of society to ensure the sensible and most efficient use of energy. For that reason, there has been extensive consultation with industry. My hon. Friends at the Treasury have received numerous representations from intensive energy users and others on the climate change levy.
    The hon. Gentleman should be honest with the House on what actions Conservative Members are prepared to take to ensure that the environment is protected for the future and that we have a truly competitive environment, nationally and internationally, for all of our companies, not only those that are intensive energy users.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
TUESDAY 23 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill.
Motion relating to the establishment of an Inquiry into the deaths of patients of Harold Shipman.
Motion on the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000.
WEDNESDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on "Job Losses in Manufacturing Industry", followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Failure to deliver its Public Health Agenda". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 25 JANUARY—Debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 JANUARY—Debate on rural and urban White Papers on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
TUESDAY 30 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY—Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
Motions on Local Government (Finance) Reports.
THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Subject to the approval of the House, Private Members' Bills will be taken on Friday 2 February.
The House will wish to be reminded that on Monday 29 January, there will be a debate relating to Members of the European Parliament and the Audit of Expenditure by EP Political Groups in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
Monday 29 January 2001:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: (a) 9712/00, Statute for Members of the European Parliament; (b) 9560/00, Audit of expenditure by EP political groups. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 23-xxvii and HC 23-xxix (1999–2000) and HC 28-ii (2000–01).]
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. In the Queen's Speech debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition drew to the House's
510
attention the glaring omission from the Speech of a Bill to reform adoption law. In February 2000, No. 10 Downing street said that the Prime Minister had personally taken charge of Government policy on adoption law. As the Leader of the House will be aware, yesterday, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister promised to legislate in this Session to reform the laws on adoption.
Therefore—although I do not wish to put the Leader of the House in a position in which she has to be coy about the general election date—I was rather surprised that she did not say in today's business statement when such a Bill will be presented to Parliament. Given the seriousness of the issue, and the fact that such a Bill would have cross-party support, I hope that the Prime Minister's promise of a Bill was not yet another of his promises; that, yesterday, he was not simply jumping on another bandwagon that he saw rolling; and that we can expect that, however short may be the time between now and the end of the Session, the Prime Minister's word is his bond.
I wonder, too, whether the Leader of the House could throw some light on the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000, which was listed for debate on Tuesday's Order Paper. That debate had only started when, because of time pressure, under Standing Order 17(2), Mr. Speaker decided that further debate on the order should be deferred. The House has waited a long time to debate the order. In a High Court case, the judge, Mr. Justice Jackson found on behalf of the National Union of Teachers against the Department for Education and Employment, and said that the Secretary of State had improperly bypassed Parliament. Therefore, when the opportunity to debate the order last Tuesday night was lost, we expected that the order would have been reinstated pretty rapidly for next week's business. I hope that the Leader of the House will reassure us that there will be a full and proper debate on that very important matter.
The right hon. Lady will know, as will the rest of the House, that hon. Members' postbags are full of constituents' letters about matters appertaining to Equitable Life. This the third week running that I have raised this matter, and the right hon. Lady said last week that she would pass on to her colleagues the grave concern in the House about the advice given by the Treasury to Equitable Life, and about the conduct of the Financial Services Authority. I hope that the right hon. Lady will find Government time for a debate on this important matter.
Finally, will the Leader of the House note that no fewer than 43 MPs representing Scottish constituencies voted in the third Division after the hunting debate last night? The vote was on banning hunting in England and Wales, and 37 of those hon. Members supported that ban. I hope that the right hon. Lady will find Government time to complete the Government's unfinished devolution business. The present situation is clearly unfavourable to England and needs to be sorted out.
Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Lady asks about the issue of adoption. She is right to say that the matter was not included in the Queen's Speech. I can assure her that a great deal of serious work is under way to try to prepare fresh legislation on adoption, but the House will recognise that it is extremely important to get the matter right. We will take the time that is needed to prepare that legislation.

511
The hon. Lady spoke about people jumping on bandwagons. There was a classic example of that yesterday, and I am not sure that she was entirely wise to raise the matter. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday made the generous offer to support a piece of legislation and ease its passage through the House. The same offer must have been made three or four times by the right hon. Gentleman or other Opposition Front Benchers—most recently in respect of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. I see that the hon. Lady is nodding in agreement.
However, what happens is that the Opposition do not deliver the promised support. Indeed, they spend time filibustering and opposing those Bills, claiming that they have discovered something wrong with them. The precedent is not encouraging, but the reason why the hon. Lady may have been unwise to raise the matter is that, at the moment, we have no time I or private Members' legislation. That is because Opposition Members keep objecting to the motion to provide time for private Members' Bills.
It is hypocrisy for the Leader of the Opposition to offer support to a private Member's Bill—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is out of order for the right hon. Lady to use that word. Perhaps she should withdraw it.
Mrs. Beckett: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is not a word that I should have used. However, the House as a whole understands the purport of the Leader of the Opposition's observations.
The hon. Lady asked what would happen with the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000. Yet again, the words that come to mind are "hoist with your own petard". The order was not debated at greater length on Tuesday because Opposition Members took so much time debating other issues. Obviously, it is open to them to make that choice, but the Government are under no compulsion to reintroduce subjects for debate which Opposition Members do not debate because they spend time wasting time.
The hon. Lady asked about Equitable Life. I hope that she is aware that, on 19 December, the Economic Secretary announced that the Financial Services Authority is preparing a report on these matters, which will be published. She should also be aware—although I fully accept that it has not had a great deal of publicity—that the Treasury Committee announced this week that it will hold an inquiry into these matters. Clearly, the matter is under consideration and I fear that I cannot offer time in the immediate future for such a debate.
Finally, the hon. Lady referred to Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies taking part in the votes yesterday evening. We do not have two-tier membership of the House—we are all full Members here at Westminster. Whenever the hon. Lady or her friends raise the matter, they talk about how wrong it is to have Scottish or Welsh MPs taking part here when we have devolved government in Scotland and Wales, but, remarkably, they never mention Northern Ireland. Not only do we have devolved government there now, but we had devolved government when the votes of Northern Irish MPs brought down the last Labour Government.
Mr. Barry Jones: What opportunities will there be next week to raise the very real
512
and serious difficulties in Wales with regard to steel? Does my right hon. Friend know that Corns, Europe's largest steel producer, is proving to be a brutal, cynical and shareholder-orientated company, which has cast a dark cloud over the future of Shotton steelworks in my constituency? Will she tell the chairman of Corns that Shotton steelworks cold strip mill must not close? The 300 jobs there are very valuable. Britain needs a strong steel industry—Corus will destroy it.
Mrs. Beckett: I hope that the fears of my right hon. Friend, who has fought long and hard for the steelworkers in his constituency, will prove to be misplaced. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is following these matters closely and has been engaged in extensive discussions with the company. The company previously highlighted what we understand to be perfectly reasonable concerns about the exchange rate, but now that that has turned its favour, it is discussing restructuring per se.
The Government will continue to monitor these issues and to do everything that we can to persuade Corns to recognise the very effective work that is carried on in the steel industry in this country where, as I understand it, productivity is very high and, in some cases, higher than in the alternative plant elsewhere in the European Union. I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to fight for his constituents.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recognise that Liberal Democrats and, I suspect, Members on both sides of the House as well as the public, are anxious that the reform of the adoption law does not become a matter with which the Front Benches can play games? Just as it is deplorable that babies and young children are being used in a personal tug-of-war, it would be unsatisfactory if the reform became a matter of party conflict.
Will the Leader of the House look very carefully at the timetable for next Tuesday? The Liberal Democrat education motion, which has already been referred to, has been put in the graveyard slot in the middle of the night. It looks very much as if next Tuesday's motion will be put in exactly the same position and that there will not be a proper debate on transparency in local government. [Interruption.] I thought that the Conservatives were interested in that, but apparently not.
When are we to have the long-awaited Government response on the Phillips report on BSE and the debate? Will the Leader be certain to indicate as soon as possible when that will take place? It is an extremely important report that deals not only with the devastation in the livestock industry, but with £4 billion of taxpayers' money. The report makes it quite clear that the recent disclosure of an organophosphates connection—as a result of that report—is important in a number of other respects, while the dismissal of scrapie as a main problem is equally important.
Finally, when does the Leader of the House anticipate that the Government will introduce this year's Finance Bill, and when does she expect to complete it?
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that adoption is not a matter on which there are party political differences—I hope that the whole House shares

513
that view. There will, no doubt, be differences within, as well as between, the parties about the precise nature of proposals that may be made, because these are difficult and complex issues. I say that with some feeling. As someone who once whipped through Parliament a change in the law on adoption, I am conscious that it is extremely important to get the legal proposals right. We all want to proceed with the matter as soon as possible, but getting the proposals as right as we can is more important than the precise time, although the Government will move as speedily as possible.
I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses about Tuesday's business, but there is no reason whatever why the business scheduled for that day should not be dealt with expeditiously as well as thoroughly and within a reasonable amount of time. Of course, nothing that we can do will make Members deal with business expeditiously; if they choose, as a tactic, to waste time, time will be wasted. The Government have provided a proper amount of time.
I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that we have every intention of initiating a debate on the Phillips report on BSE as early as we can. Work is continuing. Last week, he may have heard me remind the House that the Phillips report comprised 16 volumes. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it absolutely plain that he wanted to take sufficient time to consider the report. However, we have no hesitation in saying that, once the report has been fully considered, there will indeed be a debate as soon as we can reasonably arrange it.
Finally, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for the Finance Bill. I assure him, however, that it will be completed.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend may know that I have been submitting lists of the names of men in the United Kingdom who have either been charged with, or charged with and imprisoned for, rapes when, subsequently, women have changed their story and told the truth. It is a major problem that innocent men are going to prison for rape. May we have a debate on that as a matter of urgency?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is always extremely harmful in a society when people are charged—let alone imprisoned—for a crime of which they are not guilty. Mistakes are bound to occur from time to time, but that must always be harmful to our justice system and to the country as a whole. I understand the concern my hon. Friend expresses. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future; he may, however, find an opportunity for the debate in Westminster Hall.
Sir George Young: In next week's business, the right hon. Lady announced the Second Reading of a number of Government Bills. One of the reasons behind the extremely controversial changes introduced to our procedure by the Government—the programming of all Bills—was to inject some certainty into the legislative programme. Will she, therefore, tell
514
the House which of the Bills that have received Second Reading she expects to complete their stages through Parliament by the end of March?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not at all sure that I can give the right hon. Gentleman, a list to the end of March. I can certainly tell him that, up to the present, 18 Bills have been introduced—eight in the Lords and 10 in the Commons—and that one has already received Royal Assent. It is already c clear both that the Government have a full and measured programme and that it is being well delivered by an efficiently running Administration.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion No. 162 on food safety?
[That this House endorses the view of Judge Peter Heppell QC who reportedly told the Crown Court in Hull in December 2000 that a review of the penalties for contravening the Food Safety Act should be put in train; considers the sentences available to the Court in cases where adulterated and rotten meat destined for the petfood market ends up in food for humans, are totally inadequate; and calls on the Government to act swiftly to increase the powers available to the courts, and to restore public confidence in the food industry.]
It was prompted by the horrendous case, which came to trial in Hull in December, of the rotten, contaminated poultrymeat scam. Five individuals were sent to prison, having made a £2 million profit from that dreadful business. The ringleader got seven years, and Judge Peter Heppel said that, although he was minded to pass a double-digit sentence, he was unable to do so.
Will my right hon. Friend urge the Home Secretary, or perhaps the Secretary of State for Health, to make a statement to the House on the penalties that would be appropriate in such food safety cases? Is it not astonishing that, under the Food Safety Act 1990, only two individuals have been sent to prison—one for four months and one for three months? In the Hull case, the prosecution had to rely on conspiracy to defraud, which is not necessarily the most appropriate charge. I very much hope that either the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Health can tell us the Government's intentions on that matter.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, and I believe that the whole House shares his horror at the case to which he refers. The descriptions were so revolting as to almost put one off eating, never mind eating the substances in question.
I believe that this would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend knows that we have now introduced much greater safeguards for the food industry, and that the meat sector is already one of the most strictly regulated. This is now very much a matter for the Food Standards Agency, which has the power to recommend changes in the law and, I believe, would not hesitate to do so should it consider that they were necessary. However, my hon. Friend might like to take up the matter with the Food Standards Agency, and I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the question asked by my

515
hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) about the West Lothian question, the Leader of the House, in her reply, introduced the killer fact of Northern Ireland votes in 1979. Would she, on reflection, agree that devolution at Stormont finished in 1972, and that the only relevance of Northern Ireland votes to the fall of Lord Callaghan's Administration was the decision of the then Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to come and abstain in person?
Mrs. Beckett: No; I would not accept that. I would simply make the point again. What the right hon. Gentleman says does not conflict with the basic point that I am making, which is that it has very often been a matter of great satisfaction to the Conservative party to be able to have, and to rely on, the votes of Northern Ireland Members, when there was devolution and when there was not devolution. Throughout the course of the Government led first by the late Lord Wilson and then by Lord Callaghan, the Conservative party relied very frequently indeed on Northern Ireland Members' votes.
I simply remind the right hon. Gentleman and his party that it has never been the policy of the Conservative party, during the years when it supported devolution, to call for two-tier membership of the House, and that it has shown considerable inconsistency on that issue, both in that matter and in its approach to the actions of Northern Ireland Members. I wonder when the Conservatives will tell Members of the Ulster Unionist party and other parties that they do not intend to allow them to play a full part in the House, either.
Mr. James Wray: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 204?
[That this House is appalled at the shocking revelations of child abuse throughout Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales; condemns the professional people entrusted with the care and wellbeing of the most vulnerable children in society, who have failed to assure their safety, need and protection; and recommends that there be a public inquiry throughout the United Kingdom, the setting up of a commission in every region throughout the United Kingdom similar to the one set up in Ireland to counsel and advise abused victims and that the victims be granted legal aid in order to bring abusers to justice.]
As a Member of Parliament, I feel horrified and ashamed that we allow child abuse to continue for years. Thousands of children have been abused and a lot of the abuse has gone undetected. It is time that the House and the Government apologised, especially for some of the Government-run homes where children are being abused. It is time that we held a national public inquiry. It is time that we took a leaf out of the book of southern Ireland Members of Parliament: they set up commissions.
I hope that the Leader of the House will allow time to debate child abuse fully, in order to bring these perverts and paedophiles to justice. We owe it to our children. Talk is no use; we need action. Every national and international newspaper is crying out for vengeance, in order to rid the country of this filth.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the whole House shares my hon. Friend's abhorrence of the events that, tragically, have yet again been reported, in which a child undergoes
516
terrible suffering. He knows that it is a matter of constant discussion. Indeed, I believe that an inquiry into that particular case is being pursued, to determine what we can do to impede the actions of those who pose such a threat to children.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, but it strikes me that this is exactly the type of issue, which commands support across the parties, on which my hon. Friend or others of his view might seek a debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The first Bill that the Government introduced in this Session was the Hunting Bill. The Leader of the House has said that the Government have introduced 18 Bills. When can we expect the adoption Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong. [Interruption.] The first Bill debated was the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, which is proceeding very well through its stages in the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's question does not represent the start of a pretence by the Conservative party that, in some way, there is a party political difference on adoption—or, indeed, on child welfare. There is none and, frankly, it would be shabby and damaging to adoption if the Conservative party intended to continue with that tactic.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: As a member of one of the wealth-generating professions—engineering—may I ask when we shall have an opportunity to discuss the manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom and its relationship to the ever-growing university budgets, developing research to underpin that manufacturing?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is a qualified engineer. Indeed, she repaired one of the lifts in Norman Shaw recently. Of course it is very important that we continue to give the right attention to the manufacturing industry. She is right to draw attention to the additional support that is being made available, as a result of the investment forthcoming under the Government, to underpin the research and development that that industry needs. I fear that I cannot undertake to hold such a debate in Government time in the near future, but I draw to her attention the fact that the Opposition have chosen, perhaps unwisely, to debate such issues next week, and she might like to take part in that debate.
Mr. John Hayes: On the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), which related to the order on teachers' so-called performance-related pay, I am obliged to remind the Leader of the House of the relevant Standing Order No. 17(2), which states that if the Speaker, in his wisdom, determines that there has been insufficient debate and defers the matter,
the business and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting.
Is the Leader of the House unfamiliar with that Standing Order, or do the Government simply not want to debate teachers' performance-related pay, because it has been a fiasco from beginning to end and stands out even among the litany of conspiracies and cock-ups that characterise

517
the Government? The order will affect 200,000 people, and the House should have time to debate it fully and properly.
Mrs. Beckett: I agree that the House should debate that important issue, and I am only sorry that Opposition Members chose not to do so when the opportunity arose.
Mr. David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that a betting firm is telling callers that under no circumstances can it envisage the Tories winning the next election and that the head of that betting firm has made, or is about to make, a very large donation to the Tories? Perhaps that could be described as a loss leader. Given that I suggested that individual donations should be capped when a large donation was about to be made to the Labour party 10 days ago—at least I am consistent—is there not a case for capping individual donations during the next stage of political party finance reform?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; he is showing complete consistency and makes an important and serious point. As he knows, the capping of donations is raised from time to time, but that will be a matter for the Electoral Commission in future, because of the way in which the Labour party has strengthened the controls on party funding, which the Conservative party refused to discuss when in power for reasons that are daily becoming all too apparent.
Mr. Stephen Day: Given the fact that, inexplicably, the right hon. Lady seems to think that the Government's failure to introduce an adoption Bill was the Opposition's fault, can she tell the House what the Government's attitude will be to the Adoption Bill—a private Member's Bill, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I cannot. I am not familiar with the text and content of the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for promoting further discussion of such an important and serious issue, but the Government will obviously have to consider her Bill if the House decides to debate it.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is on the Order Paper.
Mrs. Beckett: If we do not pass the motion that provides time to debate private Member's Bills, it can be on the Order Paper, but it will not be debated.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that service men and women who have been killed in the line of duty have made a supreme sacrifice for their country? Can we have a debate based on the proposal of Rita Restorick, whose son was killed by the Provisional IRA while serving in the forces, that a posthumous medal should be issued in such circumstances? If the Americans can award the purple heart posthumously, surely the House can consider taking similar action?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not especially familiar with the rationale
518
behind the rules that govern such a proposal, but I think that the whole House would share his attitude towards those people who have been honourable enough to give their lives to defend their country. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: With the approach of the general election, the electorate will clearly wish to form a view on the value of assurances given by the Prime Minister. That being so, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement next week on his previous comments on foxhunting? The House would like to ask him why he has often said in public that the previous Bill was stopped in the other place, when the rest of us know that that was not the case.
Mrs. Beckett: I have always assumed that everyone knew perfectly well that that private Member's Bill was stopped because of the clear statements from the House of Lords that, were the Government to allow it to continue or be discussed in any way, not only would it never reach the statute book, but the other place would wreck the rest of the Government's legislative programme. As that included the national minimum wage, which the Conservatives now pretend to support, the Government were not prepared to allow that risk to be taken.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the current legal processes in Chile to bring General Pinochet to justice. Will she find time in the near future to have a debate on the Floor of the House about the situation with regard to William Beaosire and Father Michael Woodward, who were British nationals who died under Pinochet's regime? Will she also urge the Foreign Office and its Ministers to release all documents on Britain's relations with Chile between 1973 and 1990, and those that relate to Operation Condor, which was the terror regime that Pinochet instigated throughout southern Cone? The release of those documents will undoubtedly assist the cause of those people who seek to restore democracy and human rights to Chile.
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House was shocked and appalled at the treat vent of those nationals, as well as of many other people in Chile under the rule of General Pinochet. I understand my hon. Friend's desire to have that matter further examined now, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it in the near future. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but my first reaction is that all the papers that he wants released are from the previous Administration's time in government and we have only limited access to them.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Leader of the House will know that, next week, 30 hon. Members—20 of whom are, on a proportional basis, Labour Members—are required by Parliament to attend the Council of Europe Assembly in Strasbourg and will therefore be unable to vote in the new-fangled deferred voting system on Wednesday. As that has constitutional

519
implications, can she arrange for a debate—obviously not next week, but perhaps the week after—for that matter to be examined? If she says that that has always been the case in relation to votes, it is in fact a different constitutional matter with regard to deferred voting.
Mrs. Beckett: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who is a serious Member of the House, but on a first examination of his remarks, I do not perceive the constitutional difference that he detects arising as a result of deferred voting. I undertake to consider his remarks, but I fear that I do not detect the great concern that he has identified.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, yesterday in Prime Minister's Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and I asked about compensation for miners? We received a decent answer from the Prime Minister, but unfortunately miners are still not being paid. Will she ask the Department of Trade and Industry to hold an inquiry into what has gone wrong with the compensation payments, so that we can find out why miners are not being paid and who is to blame? It seems that one person blames another. A good inquiry and a statement to the House would be not go amiss with many hon. Members.
Mrs. Beckett: The whole Government understand the concern that my hon. Friend and other Labour Members have frequently expressed. Indeed, he will know that action has been taken to try to speed up the payment of the claims. I fear, however, that much of the answer to his question probably lies in the fact that this is the largest body of personal injury litigation in the history of the United Kingdom. No matter how great the pressure that we exert on those responsible, it will take time to deal with the issues. Although I cannot find time for a further debate on the matter in the near future, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to keep up the pressure.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: On 19 December the House accepted a regulation to allow the extension of embryo research, which is usually to be done by therapeutic cloning. That decision was made on the basis of an assurance given by the Minister for Public Health that reproductive cloning would remain illegal. I understand that that statement is to be challenged in the courts. It is an extremely important matter, especially as the House of Lords will consider it next week. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to come to the House in the week beginning 29 January to make a statement on the outcome of the court case?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious and important point. He was right to say that it was made clear in the debate that we do not allow reproductive cloning in this country. There is serious concern about the issues raised by the court case, but it is always difficult—and perhaps risky—to prejudge the outcome of any such case. However, I assure him that the Government will keep the matter under review. Should the outcome of the case in any way call the matter into question, the Government will be prepared to take steps, because we remain strongly of the view that human reproductive cloning should not be allowed. It will not be permitted.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to review the recent changes made by
520
the House to the Standing Orders for the programming and timetabling of Bills, to see whether the changes are working as intended? Has she had time to consider the implications of the objection that was made last night to the motion on the change in membership of the Administration Committee? Does she consider, as I do, that it is another devious way of disrupting business, which the Opposition should not be allowed to get away with?
Mr. Day: Should we all just go home?
Mrs. Beckett: Actually, we would all be very grateful if some of them were to go home. Of course, I undertake to review the way in which the experiment is working. Indeed, I know that my hon. Friend will recall—unlike some of those present, she paid close attention to the debates on these matters—that the procedures were made experimental precisely so that we could see how they worked in practice and assess whether further refinements and changes needed to be made. Should that prove to be the case, we shall propose such changes to the House.
The implications of the unusual rejection of the proposal for changing the membership of the Administration Committee will have to be considered. Given the emotion that was clearly felt by some hon. Members about the issue that we debated yesterday, I am not sure whether that rejection was a cunning plan or simply a knee-jerk reaction by people in a bad temper late at night, but no doubt time will tell.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate, if not next week then certainly in the near future, on the fate of the Kingskerswell bypass? She will recall that I have mentioned the matter before. With a view to trying to secure a debate and to find out what was happening, I raised it in the House on 21 December, when the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office said at column 677 that he could promise a letter from the relevant Minister straight away, but not the bypass. I commend him for being so straightforward.
I do not chide the Minister for not promising the bypass, but he rightly gave an assurance that I would receive a letter, and I have heard nothing. I understand that Christmas has intervened, but it is vital that my constituents know what the Government's attitude to the bypass is, and if the relevant Minister will not write the letter that he should have written, I hope that the Leader of the House will want to arrange a debate so that he can come here and justify himself.
Mrs. Beckett: I do indeed recall the hon. Gentleman's raising that issue, and I can perfectly understand his concern on behalf of his constituents, because if I remember correctly, he said that it has been a matter of contention for several years. I am extremely sorry to learn that he has not received the correspondence that he sought. I assure him that I will pursue the matter in the hope that I can get him a reply. Who knows? If a Labour Government are returned to office and investment continues, perhaps he will even get his bypass.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am conscious of the fact that this is an Opposition day, but I want to take the question

521
of every Member who has risen, so I ask for hon. Members' co-operation in ensuring that all questions are brief.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I hope to set a good example. May I redouble the request for a debate on manufacturing industry, not about the scandal of the job losses between 1979 and 1997, but about the possible asset stripping by Corns of high-quality, high-productivity jobs at Llanwern?
Mrs. Beckett: I am conscious that jobs at Llanwern are indeed of high quality, as is the successful enterprise there, so I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I fear, however, that I cannot add anything to what I said earlier about a debate.
Mr. John Bercow: I shall try to follow your instruction, Mr. Speaker. Could we have an urgent statement in Government time on what I might describe as the proposed funds for federalism provided for by the treaty of Nice as it relates to the funding of political parties? Does the Leader of the House accept that, as far as many hon. Members are concerned, such proposals would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the conduct of domestic political affairs? Does she accept also that, although many hon. Members acknowledge that there may be a case—and a weak one at that—for state funding of political parties, they can see no case whatever for super-state funding of political parties?
Mrs. Beckett: Having heard the statement by the Commission spokesman, and having read a clear statement by the Commission, I believe that Conservative Members have misread the rules to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, and that no such provision exists. There is no suggestion that any party will be or could be debarred from receiving funding.
Mr. Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the operation of the insurance industry, particularly in the light of the astonishing decision by Norwich Union to deny mortgage protection insurance to MG Rover workers on the grounds that it does not consider the company's future to be sufficiently secure? Does she agree that that is wrong, not only because MG Rover is on course to achieve its business plan, but because insurance companies should not cherry-pick customers as they have done both in this case and during the recent flooding incidents?
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's concern. We all recognise that the insurance industry sometimes has difficult judgments to make, but it seems extraordinary, if these reports are true, that the company in this case is making such a misjudgment and that it has adopted such a policy. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate, but I remind him that Treasury questions are next week and he may have a chance to raise the matter then.
Mr. John Wilkinson: As teachers north of the border are to receive a pay increase of no less than 21.5 per cent. over three years, and as
522
student fees at universities north of the border were abolished not so long ago, could the Leader of the House persuade that great parliamentary escapologist the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement about the constitutional implications? My constituents in London are paying subsidies to free riders north of the border while they are seeing an ever declining number of teachers in their schools. This is an outstandingly unjust state of affairs.
Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Gentleman's constituents are not seeing an ever declining number of teachers in their schools, or at least they will not now. That was the position that we inherited from the Conservative Government, but thanks to the investment that has been put in by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the encouragement of recruitment into teacher training, the situation is starting to turn around.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asks for a special debate on these matters. We are talking about the consequence of devolution, which we debated extensively and at length for some months in the early years of this Parliament.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Can my right hon. Friend find tine for a debate on the American national missile defence programme? It would give the Government and the majority of hon. Members the opportunity of saying that we have no intention of following George W. Bush and the Leader of the Opposition in any "Dumb and Dumber" combination in reckless pursuit of the armageddon vote.
Mrs. Beckett: Although I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on a proposal that has not yet even been formulated.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on small businesses? I declare an interest, in that I own one. A debate would enable us to expose the enormous amount of extra rules and regulations with which small businesses have to contend, and to get to grips with whether the Government are serious about persecuting greengrocers throughout the country because they are complying with consumers' wishes and selling fruit and veg in pounds and ounces. I wondered why the Government were so keen to clear prisons of thousands of convicted criminals. It appears now that they are creating space so that greengrocers can fill them over the forthcoming months.
Mrs. Beckett: Oh dear. It is most unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should choose to chide the Government for the implementation of a directive that was agreed by the previous Government in 1989. They implemented it in 1994, without any steps being taken to obtain any derogation of any sort. In 1999, when it came time for the directive that the Conservative Government had agreed to be implemented, the present Government negotiated a derogation so that its full application would not take effect until 2009. If the position had been left as agreed by the Conservative Government, the greengrocer in question would be committing an offence if he even displayed prices per pound, never mind charging on that basis.
Mr. David Drew: To be brief, I associate myself with the question of the hon. Member for North

523
Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), in that we need an urgent debate on the Phillips report, not least because a major and serious international issue has ensued and because the Food Standards Agency has issued its own report, and is looking to change the regulations. A debate cannot come a moment too soon. Would my right hon. Friend like to comment?
Mrs. Beckett: I think that the entire House shares my hon. Friend's concern and his desire that the matter should be fully aired as soon as possible. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is just as keen as he is to pursue the issue and to have a debate. He will tell the House as soon as he can when we are in a position to have the debate properly and fully conducted.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the relationship between the state and the voluntary sector? Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an important announcement to a group of people at No. 11. If he had made the announcement to the House, we would have been able to show how laughable was one of his statements. He said that the role of Government would
shift even more from the old "directing and controlling" to enabling and empowering voluntary action.
That statement is entirely inconsistent with the Government's ruling that those who wish to gain access to criminal records will get it free if they are in the state sector, while those in the voluntary sector will have to pay £10 each.
Mrs. Beckett: The charges remain under discussion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that only a few moments ago, the issue of child protection was raised. It was raised by a Labour Member, but I know that his view is shared throughout the House. The hon. Gentleman refers to an important aspect of child protection. The statement made by the Chancellor was announced is the House through the perfectly proper medium of a written answer. I fear that I cannot find time for an early debate on these matters, but no doubt there will be opportunities to raise them.
Mr. John Cryer: I reinforce the earlier request from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and my right hon Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) for a full debate on manufacturing. I am keen to hear the response of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to such a debate, as he has refused to meet me to discuss 3,000 job losses at Ford Dagenham, and has done nothing to call into question the betrayal of Ford workers by the management, apart from trotting out the Tory line that that is a decision for the company in the light of its commercial responsibilities. He should come to the House and answer questions.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to learn that my hon. Friend has been unsuccessful in obtaining the meeting that he sought. He says that Secretaries of State should come to the House and answer, and of course they do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
524
was in the House today answering questions, and Ministers from his Department will take part in the debate next week.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: There are two advantages to be had if the Leader of the House would grant us a debate on the sinister proposals that are now emerging with respect to the Commission seeking to fund the Labour party: first, she would be able to justify in debate her assertion that there is no such proposal, and secondly, were she to seek relief from the scrutiny of the debate, she could interrupt the proceedings at 7 o'clock to move her motion on Friday sittings, which would get the Government out of that difficulty.
Mrs. Beckett: The Government are not in any difficulty. We have been moving the motion regularly and consistently. It is the Opposition who apparently object to it.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the proposals that are being discussed were made under article 191, which states that the provisions
shall apply on the same basis to all the political forces represented in the European Parliament.
There is no truth in the suggestion that that is particularly advantageous to the Labour party or to any other party in this country. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front Benchers making noises off. If members of the Conservative party are incapable of reading the proposals accurately, it is their problem, not ours.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Can my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on a matter that concerns many of my constituents—the scaremongering and shroud waving in our local newspapers with regard to the future of King George hospital in my constituency? Will she draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to today's Ilford Recorder, in which the prospective Conservative candidate is described as an "April Fool" for predicting that my hospital is to close in April, when in fact two extra wards have been established in that hospital in the past three months by the Labour Government?
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is always harmful to public confidence in the health service, which is so important to the entire country, when scares are raised entirely unjustifiably, as he described. I am pleased to learn that there has been additional investment in his hospital, as in so many other hospitals throughout the land, including those in Opposition Members' constituencies, although one would not think so, to hear them talk.
I fear that, important though the issue is, I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it, but my hon. Friend may find an opportunity to raise the matter in Westminster Hall.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Prime Minister explaining his typically gutless decision to refuse to defend the record of his Government in a televised debate with the Leader of the Opposition?
Mrs. Beckett: The Opposition are on a hiding to nothing when they try to pretend that the Prime Minister

525
has anything to fear from facing the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else in debate. I cannot help recalling the many occasions on which Opposition Members have claimed that, in some way, under the present Prime Minister, our system of government is becoming presidential rather than parliamentarian, and condemned us on those grounds. We have debates and exchanges in the House every week. That is where the principal focus of debate is and will remain.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House will recall that the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House and on television that all the costs to householders of the recent flooding in north Yorkshire and elsewhere will be paid by the Government. Will she, please, arrange for him to come to the Dispatch Box to explain to the House why the Government are not paying that bill?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to say that I do not think that the hon. Lady accurately represents what the Deputy Prime Minister said. What he said was that local authorities, which obviously incurred substantial costs in dealing with flooding, would have those costs reimbursed in full. I do not think that it was ever claimed that every individual would—[Interruption.] That is a different matter. If the hon. Lady cares to write to me, I shall certainly draw her concerns to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, but it is important not to give people the wrong impression as to what has been said or what is likely to be done.

Points of Order
1.25 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we all know, there have been too many occasions in the past three and a half years when Opposition Members, and many Labour Back Benchers, have had to complain about the Government's dereliction of their fundamental duty of accountability and basic courtesy to the House of Commons.
There was a bad case of that yesterday when the Government held a press conference on British participation in the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the joint strike fighter aircraft, a project of which we are very much in favour in principle. The Government did not make a statement to the House, despite there being no other statement yesterday, so they could easily have done so.
I fear that the Government's excuse will be that they answered a planted written question. and, in so doing, had the hon. Member to whom that answer was addressed been available at 3.30 pm he would have been in the same position as journalists in terms of knowing what was going on. I hope that you will agree that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way to behave, and that such minimalist, legalistic and cynical treatment of Parliament should not be encouraged in future.
There is a real practical problem here because there are some major issues in relation to this important project, such as the impact on the defence budget of more than £1 billion being allocated to it; such as the protection available to us if the new American Administration cancel the project; such as the availability of the new technology to British subcontractors and partners; and strategic export controls.
We cannot raise any of those matters and, what is more, many hon. Members on both sides of the House representing seats with aerospace facilities in them are naturally concerned about the implications of this for the future of their constituents and how the matter has been handled by the Government. None of that has been raised and the Government have buried it entirely and simply substituted a press conference.
Is there anything, that you, Mr. Speaker, can do to try to encourage the Government, at this 11th hour in this Parliament, to set slightly higher standards in discharging their responsibilities to Parliament in the future?
Mr. Paul Keetch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that, on the previous occasion when the Government announced major procurement issues, I hose matters were to be found on the BBC website before they were discussed in the House? If that could happen, and if the Secretary of State for Defence could attend a press conference yesterday, why was not the right hon. Gentleman at the House last week for the statement on depleted uranium, or for the start of the Armed Forces Bill? Surely he should come to the House more regularly.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) gave me notice of his point of order. It is for Ministers to decide whether to make an oral statement or to give a written answer. There is a

527
written answer in today's Official Report. I shall look into the timing of its release and the more general issue that he raised.
Maria Eagle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to a question that I asked the Home Secretary on 8 January, a leading Liverpool councillor, Richard Kemp, a senior member of the administration in the city, wrote a letter to you dated 10 January. I know this because he also sent it to local journalists in a press release, and I have now had a chance to see it. In that documentation, he accuses me of misleading the House on the basis of something which he alleges that I said here. However, I did not say it in the House. He also complains that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not do something which our Procedures would have prevented my right hon. Friend from doing in any event.
I consider it a discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, and therefore to the House to use your office as a way of making cheap points. It would have been clear from Hansard that I did not say what I am alleged to have said. A mere smattering of knowledge of our most basic procedures would have indicated to Richard Kemp that his complaints had no substance. Has your office received and dealt with that correspondence, Mr. Speaker? Can you give protection to Members of Parliament who are abused in that way and can you give ad vice to non-Members about when it is, and is not, appropriate to write to you about Members' conduct?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. She has placed her concerns on the record. It would not be appropriate for me to make any further comment on the substance of what she has said. I am, however, sad that a letter to me has been released to the press before I have had an opportunity to reply to it and, indeed, before it has even been received by my office.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter arising
528
from the conduct of Trade and Industry questions this morning. I listened intently to the supplementary question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), and awaited eagerly the Minister's response. However, with the authority of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, you judged that my right hon. Friend's question was out of order. Naturally, all Members accept that ruling. As I would not wish to be subject to a similar ruling in future, I should be most grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would advise me and other Members of why a question about the exclusion of the self-employed from the national minimum wage legislation is irrelevant to Question 7 about the national minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker: A lot has happened since that question was put. However, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I will always seek to guide him.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE
    Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Charles Clarke and Jane Kennedy, presented a Bill to make provision for combatting crime and disorder; to make provision about the disclosure of information relating to criminal matters and about powers of search and seizure; to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Terrorism Act 2000; to make provision about the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad; to make provision about the powers of the courts in relation to criminal matters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 29 January, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 31].
Opposition Day
  1ST ALLOTTED DAY

    Teacher Supply
    Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business, which is an Opposition Day. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    1.33 pm
    Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
    That this House views with deep concern the crisis of teacher shortages which is hitting schools across the country and which has led to some schools operating a four day week, children being sent home early, increased class sizes and the use of non-specialist and unqualified staff; deplores the Government's complacency in the face of this crisis; notes that many teachers are leaving the profession because of the increased red tape and bureaucratic burdens imposed by this Government; recognises that the teacher shortages are damaging standards in schools; and calls on the Government to revive the teaching profession by getting rid of the excessive bureaucratic burdens faced by teachers, setting schools free and letting teachers teach.
    As I start this debate, I would like to pay tribute to the teachers and non-teaching staff in our schools who, today, are having to work even harder in the face of difficult circumstances to ensure that children receive as good an education as possible, given the problem of teacher shortages faced by schools throughout the country. Our debate takes place against the backdrop of a crisis that has all but crippled our education system. In all parts of the country, schools are facing massive problems in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg for, just as worrying, is the impact that the crisis is having on the quality of education that children receive. Behind the headlines, teacher shortages are having a damaging effect on standards in our schools. There is an immediate crisis in teacher supply, but there is also a crisis in the quality of education which our hard-pressed teachers can provide.
    We know what the Government's response will be from what they have been saying over the past few weeks. First, they will tell us that there is no crisis, as the Secretary of State did at Education questions last week, when he said:
    There is a problem, but not a crisis.—[Official Report, 11 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 1220.]
    I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies. The week before, on 7 January, the Prime Minister said on "Breakfast with Frost" that
    in the vast bulk of this country, this is not the great problem.
    Of course, it is just the sort of problem that the Prime Minister has refused to debate on television with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. First, the Government say it is not a problem, and then it is a problem, but not a crisis. I wonder what we are going to be told this week? Perhaps the problem is a little bit bigger or has become a little local difficulty. It may even—to use a word that is favoured by new Labour—be a challenge.
    It is no good the Government claiming that the problem is merely being whipped up by the Opposition. In a letter
    530
    to the Department for Education and Employment, the director of education at the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead stated:
    The threat of sending home pupils because staff are not available to teach them is imminent. We are facing a crisis.
    There are many other such concerns. In a letter published on 4 January, David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that teacher recruitment was "approaching meltdown". Last November, Derek Dorey, the head of Selsdon primary school in Croydon, said:
    We are facing a crisis of huge proportion in staffing.
    On 28 December, John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said:
    The teacher supply crisis is having a substantial effect on the education of thousands of pupils in secondary schools. Shortages exist across the country.
    Also in December, Professor Alistair Ross, of the Institute for Policy Studies in Education, said:
    This is serious, and we are in for a long-term national crisis.
    Furthermore, the Minister for School Standards received a letter this morning from the National Union of Teachers, which states:
    England and Wales are facing the prospect of the worst shortage in teacher supply for many years.
    It is not as if the Government have not been warned about the problem. Time and time again, they were warned by Opposition Members and by members of the teaching profession that teacher shortages had reached alarming levels. It is noticeable that the Government have not initiated in their four years in office a single debate on the teaching profession and the problems that it faces. This is the third such debate, each of which was initiated by the Opposition. In he two Opposition day debates that occurred last year, we urged the Government to take action to prevent a crisis. They have also been urged to do so by the Secondary Heads Association, the other teacher trade unions and other groups.
    The Government have been told for many months that the system is close to breaking point, but we can go back even further than that. In October 1997, in a press release on the first report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which dealt with teacher recruitment, the then Chairman, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment and present on the Front Bench, said:
    The Committee chose this as its first report because teacher supply is an issue that goes right to the heart of education policy. Sufficient high quality teachers are essential if we are to raise standards in our schools. In our report we conclude that there is a crisis in teacher recruitment.
    At that time, however, children were not being sent home early, no schools were completely reliant on supply teachers from abroad or were on four-day weeks and there was no proliferation of unqualified and non-specialist staff. If there was a crisis at a time when schools were operating normally, what on earth is the situation today?
    Ms Ruth Kelly: Would the hon. Lady care to compare the current Government's spending on education with that planned by the previous Conservative Government? If the previous Government's plans had been implemented, would there not have been 10,000 fewer teachers than are currently working in our schools?
    Mrs. May: I am happy to compare the current Government's spending on education with that of the

    531
    previous Conservative Government. The figures show that they are spending less, despite having come into power in May 1997 and promising to spend a greater proportion of the national income on education than the previous Government. I suggest that the hon. Lady pay more attention to her figures and not take the Whips' brief so seriously.
    Since all the threats to which I have referred arose, the Government have not taken the necessary action to prevent the crisis from harming the quality of education that our children receive. Indeed, their complacency is breathtaking. It is not as if the figures have not been showing a problem. The Secretary of State's own Department's figures show that recruitment levels have dropped since 1997 and vacancies have been rising. Indeed, official figures show that teacher vacancies have increased by almost 50 per cent. under the Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] The Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards say that that is not true, but those are the official figures released by the Department for Education and Employment.
    I can understand the Secretary of State indicating that those figures are not worth trusting. After all, last autumn, when the Department was saying that there were only 1,000 vacancies across the country, a survey by The Times Educational Supplement and the Secondary Heads Association showed that there were 4,000, which is four times the figure produced by the Secretary of State's Department.
    We do not have to examine official statistics to know the position: we just need to look at last week's edition of The Times Educational Supplement, which contains 272 pages of job adverts. The Secretary of State is not the only person to distrust his Department's statistics. As the director of learning services at Essex county council said in a letter to the right hon. Gentleman:
    Schools have expressed concern about the current definition of a vacancy used by your Department, where any vacant post covered by a contract of one term or less is not counted. This definition does not show the true extent of the problems facing schools.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Will the hon. Lady confirm for the House and for those interested whose definition that was? I have replied to the director, and presumably through him to his chairman at Essex, pointing out that that is exactly the same definition as that applied by the previous Government.
    Mrs. May: If the Secretary of State thinks that it is the wrong definition, why has he not changed it in four years? The answer is that he has not changed it and his official figures do not show the true extent of the problem faced by schools up and down the country. The head teacher of Great Totham primary school in Essex told my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that
    the situation is getting desperate; the Government is living in cloud cuckoo land if it says that there is no crisis
    When Edmund Burke talked of lies, damned lies and statistics, I can only assume that he was thinking of a future Department for Education and Employment.
    532
    Instead of learning lessons from the statistics, the right hon. Gentleman is intent on spinning them. Last week he rubbished figures from the Graduate Teacher Training Registry.
    Mr. Blunkett: I was right.
    Mrs. May: The right hon. Gentleman says that he was right. This week he has leapt on statistics that show a small increase in the number of applicants. What do those figures reveal? They show a decline in applications for the subjects that are currently desperately short of teachers: mathematics down almost 4 per cent., English down 2 per cent., French down more than 9 per cent. and history down 7.3 per cent.—a rather more worrying figure, given the number of children who, according to a report this morning, do not know who Winston Churchill was. That is the true picture behind the right hon. Gentleman's spin.
    Overall figures show a fall on the numbers recorded four years ago. The latest figures for recruits to initial secondary teacher training courses show that over the past four years the number of recruits is down by 1,000.
    Mr. Phil Willis: The hon. Lady is giving very much the same speech as was given before Christmas. What proposals does the Conservative party have to resolve this crisis?
    Mrs. May: I shall come on to that point. It is fascinating that when the hon. Gentleman discusses education in the House, he does not want to talk about the teacher shortages created by the Labour Government. His friends on the Labour Benches are doing what he wants, but it is time he considered the situation in our schools, which I am describing for his benefit as well as for that of those on the Government Front Bench.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Executive has recently given Scottish teachers a 21.5 per cent. increase in salary? That will provoke a recruitment and retention crisis in Northumberland schools, because the difference in salaries on either side of the border will be immense. Northumberland county council will be unable to match such increases because its education authority is among the worst funded in the country—indeed, as far as secondary school pupils are concerned, it receives the lowest funding—and the schools are already having to cope with a £1 million cut in their budgets. The promise of "education, education, education" is wearing very thin in Northumberland.
    Mrs. May: It is obvious from what my hon. Friend has said that, far from "education, education, education", Northumberland has cuts, shortages and shortages, and that its children are suffering as a result of the actions of this Government and of the Labour-controlled county council. Our proposals for a national funding formula will help to even out the discrepancies, and to improve the situation of those authorities that suffer from such differences in spending on their children.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. May: No, I want to make some progress.

    533
    The Government have told us that there is not a crisis, because the number of people registering an interest in going into teacher training has been going up. That is all very well, but it does nothing to tackle the problems faced by schools today. Perhaps the Government should consider the evidence of the latest Smithers report, published in December, entitled "Attracting Teachers", and the survey conducted recently by the National Union of Teachers. They show that, of those training to be teachers, some 10 per cent. fail to qualify. Nearly 30 per cent. of those who qualify do not go into teaching, and 7 per cent. of those who go into teaching drop out in the first year. Of every 100 people training to be a teacher, only just over half will go into the classroom for more than a year. An increase in people registering an interest is not going to solve the problem that our schools face today, tomorrow or in the months to come.
    There is a crisis now, the situation is worsening and we have nothing but spin and complacency from the Government. The result of the Government's inactivity is plain to see. Schools across the country are in crisis, with head teachers and their staff fighting valiantly to ensure that the damage to our children's education is minimal. The fact that many schools have avoided switching to a four-day week, or worse, is a tribute not to the Government—whose incompetence put the schools in this position in the first place—but to the heroic efforts of the teaching profession.
    The head teacher of St. Mary's high school in Cheshunt had faced circumstances in which a third of her pupils were having to lose out on lessons and go home early. She wrote yesterday:
    As from Thursday 18th January 2001, it has been possible for all students at St. Mary's High School to return to school for their lessons.
    We are grateful to those supply teachers and non-teaching staff, who are making this possible … We thank … our own staff for their dedication and commitment to our students.
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, and she also said:
    We thank the local authority and the DfEE for working with us at this difficult time …
    We all agree with the thanks that she has given.
    Mrs. May: We do, indeed, note the thanks that the head teacher has given. I am sorry that the Secretary of State had to intervene, because I was making the simple point that the teachers are the ones who have borne the brunt of the problem, not the bureaucrats. The teachers are the ones who have to deal with the crisis on a day-to-day basis in the schools, with the children in their classrooms.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons teachers have been flocking out of the profession in recent years is that, too often, the role of teacher has involved an exercise in crowd control? Does she also agree that the Government's guidelines on the legitimate use of physical restraint by teachers when dealing with recalcitrant pupils should reflect the common-sense instincts of the majority of the British people, and not the politically correct prejudices of the liberal establishment?
    Mrs. May: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the politically correct prejudices of the liberal
    534
    establishment have had a damaging effect on discipline in our schools. That is one of the key issues that teachers cite when they leave the profession.
    Mr. James Clappison: The problems experienced by the school to Cheshunt are part of a wider problem affecting Hertfordshire. It is even affecting some of the leading state schools in the county and, indeed, the country, such as Watford grammar school for boys, whose headmaster has said:
    It is becoming increasingly difficult to even get shortlists of suitable candidates for teaching positions. We are having to use every means to fill jobs.
    The situation in Hertfordshire is extremely serious.
    Mrs. May: My hon. Friend has illustrated the reality. However, this is a serious problem not just in Hertfordshire but throughout the country. When I was in Cumbria recently, I heard from teachers there about the problems they were experiencing in filling vacancies.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: May I ask a simple question? What is the hon. Lady's solution to the problem?
    Mrs. May: I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear about the problems that his Government have created, but he is going to have to hear about them.
    Mr. Twigg: What will you do?
    Mrs. May: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we will do in due course, but first he must hear about the problems caused by his Government's policy. Let me tell him that when he goes on the electoral stump—
    Mr. Twigg rose—
    Mrs. May: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question. Let me tell him that when he knocks on those doors, people will not ask him what the Conservatives propose. They will say "We pay the tax; where are the teachers?"
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware of the problems of St. Edward's school in Chipping Campden, in my constituency? For the first time in its 40-year history, the school has advertised a vacancy for a science teacher and has received not a single application. I know that that has happened in London, but if it is starting to extend to areas such as Gloucestershire, what on earth will the problems be in schools that cannot find teachers to teach?
    Mrs. May: That shows that when the Government claim that the problem has hit only schools in London, they are plain wrong. The problem is being experienced by schools throughout the country. We wish the teachers and pupils at the school cited by my hon. Friend all the best in overcoming the difficulties that they, like those in so many other schools, are facing.
    The crisis is affecting standards. In Essex, head teachers have been forced to use unqualified teachers to plug the gaps—67 in 61 schools throughout the county. In north London, a school has reported that only one in

    535
    three maths teachers has maths qualifications—a higher proportion, I suspect, than obtains in the team that produces the Secretary of State's statistics. Throughout the country, head teachers are being forced to use supply teachers to bolster permanent staff.
    Back in May 1997, the incoming Labour Government promised that class sizes would be smaller. They should try telling that to the 90 pupils at Bishop Reindorp school in Guildford, who have been put in a single class because of teacher shortage. Now we face the threat of industrial action. Let me make it clear that we do not support such action by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers; teachers and heads should go on trying to work together, as they are all doing, to ensure that children are protected from the worst effects of the crisis. But, as head teachers in Barnet said last month in a letter to parents,
    there is only so much extra work that we can ask our staff to do.
    Schools have had to shorten hours because of the crisis. Schools have had to send children home for half a day per week, or longer. There is little doubt in the minds of parents that there is a real crisis in our schools, and that it is affecting standards.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. May: No, I must make some progress.
    The general secretary of the National Union of Teachers told the Minister for School Standards today:
    Teachers are being asked to teach subjects for which they are not qualified; teachers who would not normally have been first, or even in some cases second, choice are being employed simply because there are not enough applicants for posts. Children are being taught in larger classes and subject areas are being dropped … Children's education is suffering because they are being taught by teachers who are being overstretched, stressed and in some cases not qualified to teach the subject for which they have been employed.
    What have the Government done? They have failed to address the key issue for which answer is needed. The problem is not just about recruitment; it is about retaining teachers. Why are teachers leaving in droves? Because of the work load caused by red tape and bureaucracy, and interference in the classroom.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. May: No.
    A good example has been provided by Dr. Chris Nicholls, head of Moulsham high school, in Chelmsford, who said in The Times Educational Supplement that the Government's "dictatorial" and "heavy-handed" approach has marred Labour's first term, and that the endless initiatives from the Department for Education and Employment have left teachers feeling demoralised and overburdened.
    Dr. Nicholls said that the Government's
    approach has simply been too prescriptive and over-the-top …
    We don't seem to be able to do anything in schools these days without filling out forms … We are now living in a bureaucratic nightmare.
    Even teacher recruitment is tied around with red tape, as demonstrated in the graduate and registered teacher programme. Let us look at an application form for that programme for primary schools. I can understand a requirement to ask for a few pages of details on applicants
    536
    and their needs, but how many pages does the application form have? Are there one or two pages? Are there four, five, six or seven pages? Are there nine pages? No; the application runs to 23 pages.
    It is no wonder that the director of education at the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead said that one of the major problems with the programme is that "it is over-bureaucratic" and that the application form is
    unnecessarily complex and … de-motivating for candidates and for schools.
    The director of education suggests—I should like the Secretary of State to take these proposals seriously—that the graduate and registered teacher programme should be changed
    to reflect the recruitment difficulties experienced in places other than central London,
    and that the
    allocations need to reflect the full range of teacher shortages and not focus almost exclusively on secondary shortage subjects.
    He also suggests improving the application procedure.
    Perhaps the Secretary of State could take up those constructive proposals and change the programme to ensure that it is not so bureaucratic. He could also try to ensure that the changes help schools outside London.
    If the Government really want to help resolve the current crisis, why do they not consider relaxing the restrictions now? All along, however, what we have had from the Government are not concrete proposals, but spin and no delivery. The Government's only response has been a new telephone line, a special unit in Whitehall, phoney statistics and a dogged determination to avoid admitting what every teacher across the country knows—that the education system is in crisis.
    Teachers need to be left to teach. They need to be freed from the suffocating burden of directives, circulars and guidance that flows daily from the Secretary of State's Department. New teachers who started at the beginning of last year would have received 140 guidance circulars from the Department for Education and Employment by the time that they were six months into the job.
    A Conservative Government will stop telling teachers what to do and allow them to do what they do best—teach. We have pledged to match, pound for pound, Labour's spending on schools. However, we shall ensure that that money finds its way to where it is most needed, because too much Government money is being squandered on waste and bureaucracy. By devolving powers and budgets to schools, we shall ensure, on average, an extra £540 per pupil for every school in the country.
    Dr. Peter Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. May: No.
    We need to give head teachers the freedom to use incentives to attract teachers who are right for their schools.
    Those measures will go some way to ensuring that teaching is once again made an attractive profession. It is also vital that we ensure that teachers are doing the job that they entered the profession to do—to get on with teaching, and not endlessly fill in the Secretary of State's paperwork.

    537
    The Government were elected claiming that things can only get better, but they have got worse. Across the country, too many schools have reached crisis point.
    Mr. Derek Twigg rose—
    Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. May: No. I am coming to the end of my speech, so I shall not give way.
    Schools have reached crisis point, with teacher shortages, classes being sent home early, increasing class sizes, unqualified staff, non-specialist staff and standards falling.
    Mr. Twigg: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. May: No, I will not give way.
    It is little wonder that people are saying, "We have paid the taxes, so where are the teachers? We have paid the taxes, so where has the money gone? We have paid the taxes, so when will the Government deliver?" This Government will never deliver. Only a Conservative Government will set schools free, let teachers teach and deliver the standards in education that our children deserve.
    1.59 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the enormous strides taken over the last three years to make teaching a more attractive profession; particularly welcomes the introduction of a new career structure and performance-related pay to assist retention, a greater emphasis on continuing professional development and the development of golden hellos in shortage subjects and teacher training salaries, which mean that there are more people training to be teachers now than at any time in the last eight years; further welcomes the practical steps taken by the Government to assist headteachers facing recruitment problems in some areas and the measures which have been taken to reduce needless bureaucracy in schools; applauds the improved achievement levels by both primary and secondary pupils, the big reduction in infant class sizes since 1997 and the substantial increase in teaching assistants and learning mentors to offer practical support to pupils and teachers; and notes that the number of teachers in post is higher than at any time in the last decade as a direct result of greater investment in education by the Government, and that the School Teachers' Review Body will report soon."
    The only delivery likely to come from the Conservative party is what was in store when highwaymen of the 18th century said, "Stand and deliver." The people to whom that command was directed found themselves ejected from their carriages and robbed of their money. They certainly did not get anything back.
    We need to inject an air of reality into the debate. The first thing that I want to do is thank Ralph Tabberer, the chief executive of the Teacher Training Agency, and the officials of my Department who have been so badly maligned this afternoon by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). They have worked hard over recent weeks and months to ensure that staff are available
    538
    in schools and that action is being taken in that regard. I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards for her excellent work over recent weeks.
    The hon. Member for Maidenhead believes that using the word "crisis" often enough will convince people that a crisis exists. It is certainly possible, by using that word all the time, to change the atmosphere and make it difficult for schools to attract the people that they need and encourage them to apply for jobs. It is also possible by that means to make it difficult to persuade young people that teaching is a good profession to enter, and to make it difficult for returners—people who may be thinking about going back to the profession after taking early retirement, for example—to want to return to teaching.
    Repeating the word "crisis" makes all that possible, but it will not resolve the problem. The Government have been clear all along that a problem exists. That is why we took action in 1998 with the golden hellos, about which I shall speak in a moment. That is why we made available £180 million last Match to introduce programmes—such as the graduate teacher programme, to which the hon. Lady referred—aimed at resolving the problem. The Conservative party is not committed to matching the Government's total education spend, but only our spending on schools. A. Conservative Government would not be able to afford to put those programmes in place. The graduate teacher programme, therefore, would not be available under a Conservative Government, as they would not have the money to pay for it.
    However, I thank the hon. Lady for the one positive suggestion that her speech contained. There was only one, and it had to do with the graduate teacher programme. There is a need to scrutinise all the forms, and to listen to and respond to anyone who believes that they can be slimmed down and made less bureaucratic. It is important that we spread the graduate teacher programme, and we have doubled, to 1,680, the number of people taking part in it. Those people must be made available across the country.
    I accept the hon. Lady's suggestion in that regard, and think that it is sensible. I heard no other suggestion as to what we should do. I am very sorry about that. I came here this afternoon prepared to listen and respond positively to the debate, as I have just done.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: With regard to the graduate programme, will the Secretary of State explain why a lady constituent of mine has been refused access to a teacher training course? She has A-levels in English and history, and a second-class honours degree in anthropology. She wishes to teach history at a secondary school. The refusal was based on the claim that she could not guarantee that her degree in anthropology had a 60 per cent. history content. My constituent is eager to get into teaching, but is being prevented from doing so by Government bureaucracy.
    Mr. Blunkett: I would not dream of trying to deal this afternoon with every application to an institution or for school-based training. I emphasise that school-based training is available, so the surveys from institutions, to which the hon. Member for Maidenhead referred earlier, do not add up to the total picture.

    539
    However, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to a constituency case. I can tell him that what makes the difference is the course content. Leaving her A-levels aside, if her anthropology degree had sufficient history content to enable her to train to teach secondary school specialists, there would be no reason for her not to be accepted.
    Conservative Members cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Maidenhead chided the Government because she said there were too many people—and she read from the National Union of Teachers letter—who were being asked to teach subjects that they were not equipped to teach.
    Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not being a little disingenuous here? Is not the reality that the Teacher Training Agency and the training programmes need to be dramatically reviewed? The nonsense of someone going through an undergraduate course, obtaining a degree and then not being considered appropriate to be trained in a specialism is insulting.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for another sensible suggestion. I can confirm that we are reviewing circular 4/98. We believe that common sense should be applied. However, common sense means that people have to have sufficient course content, whatever their degree, or take conversion courses. Let us agree that common sense is common sense. If we can get people with the expertise and the background to do the job in specialist subject areas, we should—it is in everyone's best interests.
    One instance was raised in the press recently. Someone took a psychology degree but did not indicate in the form that she filled in to apply for a maths course that she had undertaken sufficient course content in statistics and maths. It was not surprising that the institution did not know that that was the case.
    Mrs. May: On the maths content of courses for those who wish to undertake teacher training, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the availability of maths courses? I have had a case of a lady with a first-class degree in English who was told that she needed to improve her maths to go into teaching and then found it difficult to get a suitable course that would provide that training for her.
    Mr. Blunkett: We will examine the position immediately on this and any other instances that right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise. However, we introduced the tests for maths, English and information technology to ensure that whoever people are, whatever degree they have taken and whatever course they have been on, they are equipped to do the job in the classroom. Quality first, second and third has to be the hallmark of where we are going in order to continue what the chief inspector of schools identified last year, and what I hope will be identified and continued by the new chief inspector in his annual report in February—that the quality of teaching and of teachers has risen substantially over the past four or five years.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: The hon. Member for Maidenhead advised me earlier what my constituents would be saying to me about education at the election. However, I see my constituents on a regular basis between elections, and they tell me that they see a rise in quality and standards.
    540
    As my right hon. Friend mentioned, we have seen an increase in standards in key stage 2—they are double what they were in my constituency in 1997. My constituency has three new classrooms and a new school. That is the sort of quality that teachers want, and that is what the Government are delivering. Will my right hon. Friend agree with me on that point?
    Mr. Blunkett: How could I possibly disagree with that? It is a consequence of improved teaching and teachers in the classroom, and I thank them for it. Ultimately, the correlation between improved standards, increased levels of test results and qualification at GCSE and A-level is a result of the improvement in teachers and in the teaching in the classroom. The two go together. Paradoxically, some people are glad to have an improvement and want to reward teachers for it while others find it difficult to believe that improved teaching leads to improved exam results. They suggest that the results must somehow be fiddled, that statisticians do not have the qualifications to do the job accurately and that independent statisticians cannot be trusted. A party that says that about those who are delivering the nationally assessed and independent statistical data is not fit to be in government.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: As my right hon. Friend refers to the position 10 years ago, will he confirm to the House that the teacher vacancy rate in 1991 was approximately double the present rate? As someone who, as a chair of education, was dealing with a recruitment crisis for teachers in inner London just before that time, I do not recollect that any practical assistance whatever was offered by the then Conservative Government to help us to deal with that problem.
    Mr. Blunkett: I confirm that the number of vacancies in 1991—when, as my hon. Friend will remember, we were in the throes of the recession that followed the 1988–89 boom—was 5,500. I mention the boom and the consequent recession because at the time there was a dual problem in recruitment. With the artificially created boom in 1988, London and the south-east experienced the most enormous rise in house prices—as anyone who was around at the time will remember. We continue to feel the effects of that. However, cuts in teacher training took place throughout almost all the 1980s—especially in secondary teacher recruitment and training.
    It was precisely at that time that we needed expansion, however. That is why there are fewer teachers in their 30s and early 40s at present than there would otherwise have been—a point to which the attention of the House has been drawn previously—and we should not have the current gap, which I acknowledge, between new entrants and the over-45s.
    In the economy at present, 1.1 million more men and women are in work than four years ago. There is low inflation and continuing growth—with prosperity leading both to demand on housing in areas of high employment and, of course, to demand for labour and thus competition for the attention and recruitment of young people. That is a simple fact.
    If we were not expanding the teaching profession, the problem would not be so great. Increased investment in education leads to increased demand for teachers—as does the reduction of class sizes. That increased demand

    541
    for teachers leads to pressure on recruitment—especially in schools in London and the south-east, but also in other parts of the country.
    There is thus an economic factor. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has pointed out, the last thing we want is to be able to recruit in a recession, but to be unable to match the expansion in resource investment with an expansion in the teaching profession.
    That is the position we face. In England alone, an extra 7,000 plus teachers have been in the classroom—in post—since 1998. We know that there is a major problem, but we also know that simply to repeat the word "crisis" will do nothing to resolve it. We have endeavoured to take steps to make it possible to change the position.
    We introduced the golden hello scheme, first, for specialist subject areas, and reversed the decline in recruitment for teachers of maths, languages and science—although problems remain. As long as we are recruiting almost 50 per cent. of all maths graduates for teaching, there will continue to be a major challenge.
    We extended the scheme with the new graduate salaries—£6,000 for nine months' training—and added the golden hello of £4,000 for those who actually take up teaching. We introduced the graduate teacher programme under which we are prepared to pay people £13,000 for undertaking that work-based route. We are extending the school-based, initial teacher training programme that many people are convinced will offer a way forward in the future.
    We shall not stern the problem, however, unless we persuade both mature students and new entrants that teaching is a first-class profession. As I pointed out to one union leader two days ago, it must be in the interests of the teacher unions—competing in the run-up to the school teachers' review body—to sell to the world out there that teaching is a good job to be in. If they do not, the pressure on their members will increase, not decrease, because the more we can recruit, the more easily we can lift the burden from existing teachers. They will not have to cover if the cover is there. They will not have to cover if sickness absence does not increase. It is in everyone's interests to get this right, which is why we need ideas.
    On 27 December, we introduced an advertising campaign. Admittedly, it has not yet transferred interest into applications, because it takes weeks for people to submit applications and for those to be processed. That is why I was right in saying, at Education questions this time last week, that comparing one date with a different date in the previous year would lead to a misunderstanding about the level of applications. It did, because applications, as attested to by the graduate teacher training registry this week, are 10 per cent. up on this time last year.
    Mrs. May: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, but I will give hon. Members another statistic first. If the advertising campaign continues to be as initially successful as we hope that it will be, there will be a substantial uplift on that figure, because I can confirm to the House that, as of last
    542
    Tuesday, 100,000 inquiries have been made for teacher training, which is 61,000 more than this time last year. That is something to rejoice in.
    Mrs. May: A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had reversed the decline in applications from maths graduates to enter the teaching profession. Will he accept that the Graduate Teacher Training Registry figures that he quoted, which were published last week, show that there is a continuing fall in the number of applications from maths graduates?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I confirm that there was a 2 per cent. fall by comparison with last year, but it was the most enormous reverse of the position that we inherited, and which continued in the, first two years of our Government, in which applications from maths graduates were almost in free fall. That is why, far from sitting on our hands, we introduced golden hellos. We moved rapidly because the fall in applications from maths graduates had become so grave. So we have taken steps—
    Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, I must make progress, because the debate finishes at 4 o'clock and I want us to make as much progress as we can.
    So where do we go from here? We have got inquiries up enormously. We have got applications up. We have got an improvement of 9 per cent.—over 2,000—in those in training now, compared with this time last year. The position is improving but is still a worry.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards recently introduced further measures to bring back former teachers to the profession, by providing free courses and making it possible for those who undertake them to be paid for doing so. We have put in place resources for the most disadvantaged schools, to enable them to pay recruitment and retention bonuses. We have submitted evidence to the school teachers' pay review body, which will present its findings in two or three weeks' time.
    I believe that the combination of measures already taken and the work that the Department, the Teacher Training Agency and local authorities have done is yielding fruit. The local authorities have recruitment managers paid for by the Department. That money would not be there if there were not a standards fund and a central budget specifically for these matters. Those local authorities would not exist if Conservative Members had their way, so God knows what they suppose that schools would do if they were in real difficulties and needed to call on immediate help and support locally.
    We are also working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and local authorities on housing, as has been spelled out many times. The efforts of councils such as Reading to pay sums of money to those who are prepared to provide rented accommodation to teachers from other parts of the country who are looking for jobs in the area should be applauded—not maligned, as they have been in some parts of the press. That is precisely the sort of thing that would make sense in a sensible world.

    543
    Taken together, there are more resources to employ more teachers; more inquiries from teachers; more people recruited to courses; and more people being placed in jobs, but, yes, there is enormous pressure in an economy with a buoyant labour market, so it is vital that we make teaching attractive. That is why we have taken steps, through performance-related pay, to increase enormously the future salary and promotion levels of teachers and to reduce bureaucracy and administration.
    About two fifths fewer documents were sent to primary schools last term, compared with a year earlier, and 66 per cent. fewer to secondary schools. Slightly more were sent to primary schools than secondary schools, because 216 of the 490 pages sent to primary schools last term dealt with the grammar guide. I mention the grammar guide only because spelling, grammar and phonics are close to our hearts—at least, to some of us.
    When I read in the papers, as I did this morning, that the so-called Campaign for Real Education says that literacy programmes are not working, but the Opposition tell us that we are imposing too many specific requirements on teachers, I wonder when the right in this country will get its act together. The contradictions are so stark now. With one breath, those on the right say that teachers should teach phonics more rigorously and that they should teach spelling as dictated from the centre; with the next breath, they say that teachers should be left alone to teach as they will.
    The zealots want to dictate precisely how phonics should be taught in every classroom, but the free-for-all view—not to let teachers teach because of course they should be left to do so—suggests that the Government should not instil any teaching methodology and, presumably, that the grammar guide should not have been issued because it represents bureaucracy. Between those two extremes lies common sense.
    Common sense suggests that we spread the best practice to every school and that we support teachers and enable them to do the job well. When their confidence and self-esteem are lifted, as results improve and children flourish, so will recruitment to the teaching profession, as will the quality of opportunity because standards in every classroom will be of the best.
    2.22 pm
    Mr. Phil Willis: May I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench team, and to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who leads the Conservative party's education team, for having to leave the debate early to travel to another engagement? I have given those on both Front Benches notice of that fact.
    I do not want to begin with empty words of thanks and congratulation to the teaching profession. Few hon. Members who have spent their lifetime in education, especially working in the more difficult areas of Leeds and Middlesbrough, fail to appreciate the value not only of education but of what our teachers provide young people with. It is immensely sad that, every time we debate education, we talk about all that is wrong with education and the education service, rather than celebrating the achievements.
    It was interesting that, despite all the difficulties—I shall return to them because they should not be glossed over—an analysis and poll in The Times Educational
    544
    Supplement showed that two out of three teachers still enjoy their jobs. We should celebrate and build on that, rather than merely talking about the problems. Although the hon. Member for Maidenhead makes some telling points, she fails to recognise that teacher recruitment has been a problem since 1983. With the exception of the period between 1991 and 1994, when there was a recession, the targets set by previous Governments since 1983 were missed. Indeed, the maths targets between 1994 and 1997 were missed on average by nearly 25 per cent. We have to take that into account and say, "A plague on both your houses", because no one has been able to master how to recruit teachers in a buoyant economy. We cannot simply ignore that problem.
    I want to raise many issues with the hon. Member for Maidenhead, but I am principally concerned about her remarks that quality is being damaged. I reject that statement. I accept that there is enormous pressure and children in some schools do not have teachers, but in the 1980s, I worked a four-day week virtually every week because of union action. So it is not new for heads and schools to be working in such a way. Of course it is not good for kids not to have a teacher in front of them, but I reject what the hon. Lady said about quality.
    Mr. John Hayes: Drawing on the hon. Gentleman's expertise, which I recognise, will he comment on the implications of a large number of supply teachers working in a school in succession? I am not being negative about such teachers, many of whom are very good, but does he not agree that a rapid turnover of staff, or the use of non-specialist teachers to teach subjects with which they are not completely familiar, is bound, even with the greatest effort in the world, to have an impact on standards and quality?
    Mr. Willis: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is not my point. I am saying that what has happened over the past three or four years is not new; it has been happening for the past two decades. When a school does not have a regular supply of teachers whom the youngsters know and respect and who are able to lift their morale and self-esteem, that will, of course, affect the product. However, the idea that that has happened in schools only since this Government came to office is nonsense.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willis: In a moment.
    Let us consider the results of the standard assessment tests at key stage 2, which were introduced by the previous Government to measure student performance. Between 1996 and last year, passes in English increased from 57 per cent. to 75 per cent, in maths from 54 per cent. to 72 per cent and in science from 62 per cent. to 85 per cent. Is that a fall in standards? Those figures reflect the reality of what has happened in our primary schools, and we should celebrate it. GCSE results over the same period have increased from 44.5 per cent. to 49 per cent. That is not because exams have got easier, but because our youngsters and teaching are getting better; and that is not lower, but higher quality.

    545
    The real problem lies at level 3, which causes most concern in this country. The previous Government constantly and desperately ignored that problem after their revolution in education in 1992–93 and the incorporation of further education colleges, but 40 per cent. of our students are now achieving level 3, which is a remarkable state of affairs.
    Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman's peroration went on to make the point that I wanted to raise.
    My constituency of Slough provides a typical example of the improvement in standards that the hon. Gentleman describes. It has the most improved urban education authority in the country and standards for achievement at GCSE level have exceeded the national average for the first time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that has been achieved at a time when the town has had difficulties in recruiting qualified teachers? Does he also agree that it is an example of how well and how hard our teachers have worked during that time? They and the children should be congratulated. If we can do that well at a time of recruitment difficulties—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order.
    Mr. Willis: I have got the point of the hon. Lady's peroration. I take every opportunity that I can to praise the teaching force across the country. Of course, there are examples of bad teaching and there are poor teachers, but teachers make up a work force of whom we should be proud. I send my hearty congratulations to the teachers in Slough on their efforts.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I agree entirely that good teaching contributes to raising standards. When teachers and children work well together, the best results are achieved. Although I agree that the majority of teachers are dedicated, committed, love their jobs and love children to succeed, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that leadership in schools is also vital? We must not overlook a growing concern. Many school governors now receive very few applicants from whom they can choose to provide the future leadership in their schools.
    Mr. Willis: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The public sector is no different from the private sector and leadership, wherever it occurs, is the absolute key to improving the standards of a teaching force. If there is one thing that I would take the Government to task for it is that over the past decade—and not just since 1997—head teachers, in particular, have been taken away from their core business to do other tasks at the periphery of leading a dynamic team in a school. That is sad. One of the sad aspects of the Tories' proposals for free schools is that managers would do even more bureaucratic work instead of leading their school communities.
    In his latest report, Lord Woodhead of Smith Square said that 90 per cent. of schools had a higher proportion of good teaching than when they were previously inspected and that 70 per cent. of them had significantly improved their exam performance. I rest my case. Standards are not dropping as a result of the problems that
    546
    schools face. We must recognise that teachers are making heroic efforts to maintain standards in very difficult circumstances.
    One would expect a Labour Government who promised "education, education, education" to reward teachers for the efforts that they are making and their performance. Have they received better rewards and better conditions of services? The Times Educational Supplement said last week that 80 per cent of teachers said that their job was more stressful under tiffs Government than it was before. I find that hard to believe—I was incredibly stressed out by 1997. The survey found that 91 per cent. said that Government had failed to raise the status of teachers. Raising their status is crucial if we want to retain them. There is nothing worse for those who go to the pub on Friday night—I do not, because I do not drink—than to have people poke fun at them because they are teachers.
    Mr. Hayes: They laugh at the hon. Gentleman because he is a Liberal.
    Mr. Willis: I shall ignore the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention. It is important that we raise teachers' status.
    One in 10 teachers questioned in the survey said that they had been assaulted, and that is a worrying statistic that must be tackled Some 85 per cent. said that they were increasingly pressurised as a result of their job since 1997. Have the rewards increased because of the extra pressure, the extra work and teachers' extra productivity?
    The Government say that 190,000 teachers will receive £2,000 more as a result of threshold payments. I welcome the extra money for teachers, but only 190,000 out of 500,000 will get it. The majority of the others will have only a 3.5 per cent. pay rise this year—40p a day for a cup of coffee is what most teachers will receive for all the efforts that they have put in. I defy the Minister to come to the ballot box—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dispatch Box."] I am sorry; I have got elections on the mind. I defy the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to say that such a pay rise is sufficient reward for the efforts that teachers have put in.
    Turning now to head teachers—I declare an interest, in that I was a head—the Government are telling them that they do not trust their judgment on threshold assessments, so an external assessor must come to the school and if he does not agree with that judgment, he will make a decision over their head. Does that give head teachers the impression that we value them and their judgment? I urge the Minister to reconsider the issue of external assessors and to get rid of them, because they are an expensive nonsense. The Government should pay Cambridge Education Associates a small sum to go away and allow head teachers to get on with their job.
    Mrs. May: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the Government's characteristics, which they display in their interference in the classroom, in their second-guessing of head teachers' judgment through external assessors, and in many other examples, is their complete and utter failure to trust teachers?
    Mr. Willis: I certainly feel that there is a great desire to control everything in education from the centre, except in higher education, and that is a genuine failing on the

    547
    part of the Government. If we have another Labour Government after 3 May, they must allow professionalism to triumph in education; otherwise we will simply have a technician service, and I do not think that anybody in the House wants that.
    A person in my office calculated that a Railtrack employee would have received a bonus of about £6,500 for working over the Christmas period. It would take teachers, with their 3.5 per cent. pay rise, 10 years to make up that difference. That gives a sense of the imbalance in the rewards of teachers and others.
    The McCrone report in Scotland was the equivalent of our Green Paper. We must remember that the Scottish Parliament has existed for a relatively short time, yet that report recognised that education was crucial and said that the Parliament wanted to back teachers to the hilt. Not only did it produce its own version of the Green Paper, but it set up partnership discussions with political parties, the Executive, local authorities and trade unions to hammer out an agreement for the future.
    We must compare that with the way in which this Government dealt with their Green Paper. We never had a debate in the House about the Green Paper, about performance-related pay or about threshold assessments. The Government forced that policy through; they even forced it through the courts to mike sure that it was implemented exactly as they wanted. That, too, is a massive failure.
    The Scottish Executive have promised teachers a 21.5 per cent. pay increase over three years, giving certainty to schools and the profession. They have promised 4,000 more teachers to reduce class sizes throughout the education system, improved conditions of service, recognition of increased demands and a statutory right to support for professional development. None of those has been introduced by this Government under the policy of education, education, education, yet they are crucial to the teaching profession and for raising standards.
    On threshold payments, the Minister is famous for saying to teachers, "We want something for something." I admire her enormously for the effort and energy that she puts into her brief, but telling teachers, after all that they have delivered, "You have to do more to get your threshold payments," sends out entirely the wrong message.
    In Scotland, there is no performance-related pay, no payment by results and no bureaucratic threshold. There are no external assessors checking on head teachers and there is no denial of employment rights for part-time staff and those belonging to trade unions. What a difference devolution has made. What a contrast there is in Scotland now that Liberal Democrats are in government. [Interruption.] I thought the Minister would like that.
    If we are to make a real impact on teacher shortages, the Government must recognise that they must have a new approach, and that pay and conditions of service matter. I do not accuse either the Secretary of State or the Minister of not wanting to improve standards or not wanting to support young people. I think that they do, but I believe that they have got a great deal wrong.
    The Minister is right to say that bureaucracy is not only about paperwork. Most of the bureaucracy has come about through initiatives. My argument with the Minister is that we are having too many initiatives. If we want to reduce
    548
    bureaucracy, we need to reduce significantly the number of initiatives and stop forcing schools to do things that they do not want to do.
    Ofsted says that there is a problem at key stage 3. It has produced evidence that shows that there is some difficulty, especially with year seven, and a dip in performance. What do the Government do? Every school has to respond to a key stage 3 initiative, even though the Ofsted report has praised a school for its key stage 3 work. It might be poor in information and communications technology or in languages, but it has to have an incentive in respect of key stage 3.
    Liberal Democrat Members have supported the idea of specialist schools. I have always supported the idea that every school in the land should be noted for a specialism. It is absurd that when the 30 per cent. quota with the local education authority is reached, it is not possible to have any more specialist schools. Surely they are either a good thing or a bad thing. Either they are worth having, or they are not. The Minister is right to say that they have shown improved examination results and less truancy. That being so, we should try to extend them to cover every school.
    When the Minister replies, I ask her to explain why we are not recognising community schools in London and in our other large cities as specialist schools. These are schools that offer a range of provision that embeds itself in the community. Why is that not a specialism? Why are we not having ethnic language specialist schools? Why are European languages the only yardstick for language schools? That is insulting in areas such as Bradford, for example, where there is a huge ethnic minority population. We should cherish and celebrate the languages of that minority.
    In rural areas, there is often only one school. Why cannot it be a specialist rural school so that it is celebrated in that way? We must consider other ways in which we can support schools.
    Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman talks about specialist schools. Will he bring it to the Government's attention that the 30 per cent. ceiling applies regardless of the specialism of the schools in a particular area? It is nonsensical that, regardless of particular existing specialisms, a technology college, for example, can be prevented from acquiring the status that it deserves and demands.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I hope that the Minister was listening. We have completed some research which reveals that schools with specialist status are predominantly in middle-class areas. They are not in the—
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to point out, in addition to his response to the question of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), that the Conservative Government were responsible for the worst form of restriction. They restricted specialist schools to grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Willis: The Minister has taken the words out of my mouth. I was about to make that riposte, but I was trying to be generous to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman need not be.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is always courteous in the House, and he deserves a courteous response.

    549
    If we are to have specialist schools and to develop that approach as a central theme, we must remove absurd restrictions and ensure that all schools can bid appropriately.
    The Prime Minister said that he wants the best of our state schools to be as good as the best public schools. Hear, hear—I want that, too. What is the great difference, however? Let us take away class sizes and facilities. The great difference is that our public schools allow the heads and their staffs to define the priorities for the youngsters in their school and to move ahead. We want to see a level of professionalism that is missing at present.
    The hon. Member for Maidenhead should not get excited and think that I am supporting her free schools initiative. To be fair, she did not go on too much about free schools this afternoon, having had her nose bloodied at the north of England conference.
    We are proposing to cut bureaucracy and set schools free. Imagine what bureaucracy would result from 24,000 separate schools competing with each other. What would that do for recruitment and retention? How would that help to resolve the crisis in teacher recruitment?
    Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that he wants the state school system to emulate the successes of the public or independent school system. How does he think the independent schools cope so well in a competitive environment?
    Mr. Willis: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would answer the question, but he has posed another question. I am delighted. If the school in which I worked in Leeds, John Smeaton community high school, had £7,500 per student instead of £1,700 per student, I could have offered a better product than I did.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He is contradicting himself. Only a few moments ago, he said that a school's success was nothing to do with its resources—it was about freedom from bureaucracy and the ability of the head and the teachers to run their own school.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman does me an injustice, which is unusual for him. He is quite a courteous person, when he is not speaking about grammar schools. Hansard will demonstrate that I said that I wanted to strip those things out. They are the obvious differences between state and public schools. Freedom, professionalism and trust are extremely important.
    Imagine the chaos if every rural primary school and every small secondary school had to close, as they would under the Conservative proposals. Let us be honest about that. If there were equity of funding on a per capita basis from the centre across the whole country, every small primary school that is currently subsidised by the local authority under the formula system would close. We hear no answer to that.
    Imagine saying to a group of head teachers in front of one of those big posters, "We are campaigning against bureaucracy, but by the way, you will now have to organise your own admissions, your own appeals, your
    550
    own SEN tribunals, your own statementing processes, your own psychology, speech therapy and sensory impairment services, and so on. That will not increase your bureaucracy, but you will have to organise it. Also, you will have to sort out your own buses and taxis, your governors' support, your legal services, your payroll and every other service. Don't ask LEAs for any support, as we are abolishing those."
    That is the nonsense implied by the Tories' proposals. I challenge any hon. Member to stand in front of one of the posters and quote that. That is where the £540 comes in. It is not £540 on top of what the Government are promising, or what we are promising. It is £540 taken away, to be given back to schools for those bureaucratic services. That is nonsense, and it will do nothing to alleviate teacher shortages.
    May I offer the Minister some suggestions for dealing with the current crisis? The state of teacher recruitment and retention is well known, so I shall not dwell on it. Rather than go into battle with the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, the National Union of Teachers and the other teacher unions, the Government should set up a taskforce to see what immediate steps could be taken to sort out the crisis.
    What about short-term contracts with pension protection for recently retired teachers? A significant number of people are leaving the profession and short-term contracts with pension protection would help. What about DFEE contracts with supply agencies to take supply teachers off their books and give them short-term contracts within schools? What about funding LEAs directly to work with DFEE recruitment managers to provide a pool within their authorities? What about using LEA advisers to teach in some schools? What about offering short-term experience contracts to Ofsted inspectors? What better opportunity could there be than to have a port in the Ofsted inspection system and get all the Ofsted inspectors to do some real work in the schools? What a popular move that would be. Moreover, we should abandon the external threshold assessors and ask them, rather than wandering about, to go into schools and teach. We need long-term solutions.
    The Secretary of State was not being entirely honest—honest is not the right word though, because I would not accuse him of being dishonest. But he was certainly manipulating the truth when he talked about the GTTR figures last week. [Interruption.] I have already used the word disingenuous. The hon. Member for Maidenhead also alluded to this point. On 3 January we had the GTTR's figures. A GTTR board decision was taken in October last year to produce figures only in the first week of every month so that there can be no political manipulation or misinterpretation. The hon. Lady and I, and the Minister, went to Bridlington in the first week in January, sunny as it was, and in a debate we openly used those figures showing a 16 per cent. drop in applications.
    The Secretary of State did not like that. Suddenly, the chief executive of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service produced an ad hoc set of figures at his own discretion for the Secretary of State to use in today's debate. That is utterly unacceptable. The hon. Member for Maidenhead did not have an advance copy of those figures, and nor did I. The Secretary of State received them in a press release that was embargoed until midnight. That is not open government. UCAS is an

    551
    independent organisation which should be providing information to all on a fair basis, but there has been some manipulation. The Minister should respond to that point.
    The press release from the Minister and the chief executive of UCAS did not show that, while there was a drop in virtually all the major traditional national curriculum subjects, since the Conservative Government left office there has been a 35 per cent. fall in applications across all subjects. That is how dire the situation is, and that is why it is rightly said that there is a crisis.
    I am delighted that the Secretary of State has promised to revisit the issue of inappropriate degrees and to try to clear a path through that. It is important that we recognise that degree status entitles one not simply to an understanding of particular subject knowledge, but to a range of skills and applications. Teacher training should enable people to consider how to use skills and knowledge and move into other areas.
    In The Times Educational Supplement last Friday there were 236 maths vacancies. The problem cannot be resolved simply by saying that we need to recruit more maths graduates. It is madness to say that a teacher can come from New Zealand with no national curriculum training to teach in our schools, but someone with a sociology degree cannot be trained to be a maths teacher.
    We must attract more graduates to teaching. In reply to a question last week, the Minister said that the Liberal Democrat proposal for a 100 per cent. training salary could not be afforded. If £6,000 results in 100,000 responses to the telephone advertising campaign, how many more would come forward if there was a proper 100 per cent. salary training for people coming into teaching? Rather than dismiss that, I hope that the Minister will support it.
    We want to offer solutions. We want to work with the Government and the Opposition to find solutions to some difficult problems. Teachers are at the heart of an education system. If we have good teachers, well paid and well valued, every child in Britain will matter, not just the few whom the Conservative party would like to support, or those whom the Government are trying to support.
    2.55 pm
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Usually, 90 per cent. of what he says is good stuff, but the remaining 10 per cent. I ignore. It is like the Liberal Democrats' rather poor amendment. The hon. Gentleman's speech was much better. However, it cannot be right that, at 2.56 pm, in a short debate, with another two Front-Bench speeches to be delivered, Back-Bench speakers will have only about half an hour. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 33 minutes and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke for more than half an hour. Mercifully, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was quite short in comparison. It is not good for democracy or for Parliament for Back Benchers to have so little time. [Interruption.] Plenty of Liberal Democrat and Labour Members are present.
    Today's debate is exactly the same as one we had a couple of months ago, and no doubt we shall have another in a couple of months' time when the official Opposition again try to prove that there is a crisis by constantly repeating that fact. As Chairman of the Select Committee
    552
    on Education and Employment, I am trying to be reasonably objective, but as far as I can see only a few schools have a real problem. For a few days a few schools introduced a four-day week, but with help from their LEA and the Department, the problems were quickly solved.
    Let me put the problem in perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) cogently made the point that the teacher shortages 10 years ago posed a far greater problem. However, this is a debate about recruiting teachers. The Nuffield Foundation document "Attracting Teachers", the result of research by Alan Smithers and Pamela Robinson, makes some good suggestions. We must consider teacher recruitment across the board.
    I have previously spoken about the nature of the economy. We are at the top of the economic cycle. We have real competition and we are losing many women who, 15 or 20 years ago, would have gone into teaching. A diverse and interesting range of jobs is now open to them. Many of them still go into teaching, but a woman can do anything now. In the old days, a woman was either a secretary, a teacher or a nurse. Speaking as a man with a son and three daughters, I am glad that girls leaving school can now do anything that they like, and they do. That is magnificent, but it has implications for the teaching profession.
    The problem is about pay, status, respect and conditions of employment. I was looking at the Green Paper, which is now a couple of years old, in which there are some good ideas about school design. When I go to schools, I see the need for simple things like space in which to work—a desk and shelf of one's own or somewhere to put one's personal belongings, computer and so on. That is very important. We were promised that there would be all sorts of innovations, and Lord Puttnam, I think, was going to design the staff room of the future. However, I have not heard much about that recently, and I still go to dreary staff rooms, with a few rather worn armchairs clustered round the sides of what obviously used to be a store cupboard or perhaps an old classroom.
    The Green Paper and the Nuffield research also deal with the private sector. I am not someone who says that we cannot learn lessons from the private sector. Of course we can. Twice as much money is spent on pupils in private education, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough reminded the Opposition Front Bench, and one can do a lot more with twice as much funding. Not only did I read about private schools, but I asked a recently retired distinguished head what were the problems in the private sector. Even with the ability to pay more, the private sector is finding it difficult to recruit science and maths graduates as teachers. I was told so by someone who was recently running a large public school.
    We need to address problems with accommodation, status and so on. However, in a debate such as ours, we should also discuss the way in which people in an educational partnership can help. Parents, it is true, often do not really respect teachers, even in the private sector, as one learns from talking to people in that sector. The retired head teacher told me, "They really think of us as servants, you know. Quite good quality servants, but not up to their standards."
    We must address the real problem that exists in this country and bring parents into the educational process much more as partners. We made a clear statement on that

    553
    in the Select Committee report on early years, which we published only last week. Parents should be partners. If they are valued as partners, they will value and respect teachers. We must learn from that and develop respect on both sides. There is therefore much to work on regarding parents.
    That partnership approach includes the trade unions. It is perhaps unfashionable for Labour Members to say that we should expect much more thoughtful comment, leadership and wisdom from the trade union leadership in the teaching profession. I mix with teachers' union leaders a great deal and have introduced an innovation whereby they are all are invited to talk to the Select Committee about how they see the future of education. We are trying to treat them as full partners.
    The other evening, I was at a prizegiving at the Queen Elizabeth school in Wimborne, Dorset. When one talks to teachers, one sees that they do not have half the prejudices that one reads about, even in the polls in The Times Educational Supplement. Incidentally, some rather good things were said about the Government in the TES survey. The hon. Member for Maidenhead did not mention one aspect of that survey, which covers not just political issues, but how teachers feel about life.
    However, the teachers in Wimborne told me, in confidence, that they were worried when they heard the trade union leadership being strident. The strident tone of the teaching unions does not do the partnership much good. Their comments on the day when the chief inspector of Ofsted retired are an example of that. Everyone has his or her own ideas about the former incumbent, but I must tell the House that the comments of the trade unions annoyed a lot of people. They were crass and inappropriate, not as a judgment but as a way of speaking. It does teachers no good when trade union leaders speak in those terms, or when people hear at Easter conferences only the most extreme and discordant voices. Union leaders must therefore take their responsibilities more seriously.
    I also want to mention the press. Many people switch on the "Today" programme and a lot of them like John Humphrys. I think that John Humphrys personally is quite a nice man. However, he represents the strident school that thinks that everything is a crisis. To him, a few teachers on a four-day week at one school is a national crisis. "Today" is important because it sets the tone for the rest of the day and, often, for the rest of the week. However, if one goes back to the original story, one can see that it does no one any good always to treat everything that happens in education as a major crisis.
    Mr. Hayes: It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman, especially in the light of his role, to dismiss the crisis as one school that was once on a four-day week. There is a genuine problem, which the Secretary of State has acknowledged. The Liberal Democrat spokesman has acknowledged a severe problem. Schools throughout the country are affected and, if I may, I shall give one example.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It has already been pointed out how little time is left. Interventions should be very brief. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
    Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance. Nearly all our debate has been Opposition
    554
    Members making speeches and interventions. I am trying to correct—and, given my role, I believe that I have every right to do so—the balance of the comments of the Opposition spokesperson on education. I wish to balance what she described as a national crisis, in which schools would fall to pieces tomorrow, with the fact that that is a relatively minor problem. I accept that it is serious problem, but I am trying to put it in perspective.
    In conclusion, I was trying to talk about the partnership that makes education work. It is a partnership in which the media have responsibilities. I picked out the "Today" programme but, generally, we have a very good and highly responsible educational press in this country. It joins the argument and, more often than not, raises the level of debate and discussion. However, even when the broadsheets get into the education field, too often we see a different aspect.
    I have to say at least one uncomfortable thing to my own Front Bench, just to balance the fact that I have been rather kind on the question of whether or not this is a crisis. Some of us who represent English constituencies will increasingly question the ability and resources of three parts of the United Kingdom but especially one in the news at the moment—Scotland. We shall ask how Scotland can spend a great deal more money on education than England apparently can. I have the figures from the Library. Per capita, £814 a year is spent on education in Scotland. In England, that figure is £636; in Northern Ireland, it is £896; and in Wales, it is £645. Thus England is at the bottom.
    Many of us who remember the original balance of resources that flowed from the Exchequer to different parts of the United Kingdom question very much the generosity of the Barnett formula, which gives Scotland the ability and resources to afford that sort of expenditure per head. English Members of Parliament—including some on the Front Bench, I am told—will increasingly question the Barnett formula and the flow of resources to Scotland, compared with the flow of resources to other parts of England.
    If one speaks to people in the private sector and reads the Nuffield report, one sees that teachers like working in the private sector because more emphasis is placed there on the ability to teach than on keeping discipline. No Opposition Member commented on the disgraceful intervention made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who said that the role of teachers in most state schools was to provide crowd control. That is a gross travesty. We should consider the damage that one such Back-Bench remark can do when it is reported in the press and teachers read it. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not know the hon. Member for Buckingham as well as Labour Members; we understand exactly where he is coming from. It is damaging that an hon. Member can make such comments with no reprimand.
    I want to provide some balance. Of course there is a problem with discipline in some schools and we must get to the roots of it. In my first education speech in the House, I suggested that it was about time that we gave kids with less academic ability something constructive to do. The number of experiments on getting kids into more work-related activities—such experiments have so far been conducted in 21 schools, where they apply to children at the age of 14—should be increased. Furthermore, we still underrate the value of information technology training for that sector of pupils. The standard

    555
    of information training in Britain is still well below that in many of our European competitor countries. I want this country to become the information and learning society of Europe and to be determined to use every resource to be the most successful country in achieving that.
    My experience in schools suggests that giving less academically able children the opportunity to gain IT skills early on allows them to contribute, makes them feel valued and gives them self esteem Research also shows that that is the case. I hope that the Government listen to that message, as such opportunities make life in the classroom so much easier and better. Where they are available, the whole school will benefit from all the children feeling valued and having value.
    3.12 pm
    Mr. John Randall: I shall endeavour to be brief, although I should like to raise many issues.
    My family has a certain tradition of teaching that stretches back to my grandmother, who taught classes of more than 100 pupils in Kennington at the turn of the last century. My grandfather was a peripatetic woodwork teacher in the West Drayton area, where I now live, and my aunt was a senior lecturer in education at Goldsmith's college.
    I even married an English teacher and a special needs teacher—I refer to one person only Indeed, I have spent much of my time in the company of people from the educational world. One of the messages that I receive most clearly from such people is that the less politicians and politics are involved in education, the better. Obviously, hon. Members of all parties are well-meaning, but teachers are sick and tired of political interference.
    I pay tribute to teaching staff and to members of the local education authority in Hillingdon. I do not have time to mention all the achievements of my local schools, but I should like briefly to refer to Mr. Robert Preston, the headmaster of Abbotsfield school. He has managed to get his school out of special measures, but my reason for mentioning him is to give the Department for Education and Employment a gentle reminder that he is still waiting for replies to two letters. The first was sent in September and the follow-up in October. Doing the courtesy of providing an early reply would be a good way of giving a pat on the back to somebody who has done a good job.
    The debate is timely for me, as the director of education in Hillingdon, Mr. Philip O'Hear, convened a meeting last Friday of the three Members who represent the Hillingdon area, along with heads of primary and secondary schools and local education authority representatives. As a former head teacher, he has brought a great deal of expertise to the LEA. Although he and I might not agree on everything, I recognise that he has been doing his very best.
    I should like to outline some of Hillingdon's current problems, a great many of which relate to staff shortages. In one primary school, 60 per cent. of teaching posts are filled by temporary appointments. There is a significant turnover of younger teachers. Almost 30 per cent, of teaching staff in Hillingdon are under 30. That is yet another problem, in addition to the pressures on the London area and all the other problems that teachers face.
    One of the most disturbing concerns in Hillingdon is that many of the vacancies are arising because teachers are moving to another LEA area. In particular, we are
    556
    suffering because neighbouring LEAs such as Brent benefit from the excellence in cities scheme—indeed, I think that that applies also to Harrow and Slough. That has put our LEA in competition with those of neighbouring areas, and it is at a great disadvantage in terms of incentives and support.
    Furthermore, I do not think that some of the areas of deprivation in the borough are adequately recognised. I refer especially to Yiewsley, West Drayton, and Hayes and Harlington, but other pockets also exist. We have written to the Department about those concerns and I urge it to consider the problem seriously, as we are losing out.
    As time is short, I shall read out some of the comments of heads who attended the meeting. I shall not name them, as it would be invidious to do so, but I am sure that they would stand by their words if a Minister were to visit the area. I know that the Minister for School Standards has already made such a visit, but bearing in mind the current situation, perhaps it would be appropriate for her to do so again. The area is not terribly far away, and Ministers are always welcome—we are a friendly lot down in Uxbridge.
    One head told the meeting that he laughed out loud when he heard the Secretary of State saying that there was no crisis. I appreciate that we must be careful not to give a dog a bad name, but I think that the teaching staff recognise that a crisis exists and they want it to be acknowledged as such. Other teachers at the meeting said that
    standards are seriously at risk;
    that
    senior management are just firefighting;
    and that
    the situation is only getting worse.
    One head was worried that
    people are being appointed who would not normally have been appointed.
    It was said that one school would take anybody who could walk and talk at the same time, and that if an applicant could chew gum as well, it would be a bonus.
    Another request was made for experienced teachers for asylum seekers and it was pointed out that Hillingdon had a big problem in that respect. Retention problems were mentioned and it was said that teachers felt overloaded. Concerns were expressed about political interference and impossible deadlines. House prices and salaries were, of course, identified as an additional problem. I have many other issues to raise; perhaps I shall have to take another opportunity to do so. One primary school head referred to the problem of the demise of the B Ed degree and its impact on recruitment.
    I have also been told that classroom assistants are bearing the brunt of the teacher supply problem. They feel that their position is largely unrecognised and relatively unrewarded. We have another problem that we are taking up with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, concerning funding, and the cash settlement in particular. Perhaps it could be noted that we are awaiting its reply to a letter about that problem.
    While I am on the subject of replies, St. Mary's primary school in my constituency is waiting for an urgent reply because of a period of tender that expires on 26 January, but in fact that reply has not been awaited all that long,

    557
    and I shall send on the proper details later. I have just received the information, and I thought that I would get that one in.
    The timing of the problem is unfortunate because it has occurred at a specific point in an election cycle. Given the politicians that we are, the subject will become a focus. That is unfortunate, because it means that the focus will not be on resolving the problem. We should seriously consider removing the subject from the strictly party political arena, even at this stage in the election cycle, because retaining it there does a disservice to children, parents and teachers.
    I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) about raising teachers' status in society and improving everyone's attitude to them. I do not know which Minister can give a steer on the matter, but I am sick and tired of seeing teachers portrayed on television as rather bizarre people. The heroes, especially on children's television, are the kids who rebel, and anybody who does well is regarded as a swot.
    3.21 pm
    Mr. Hilary Benn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), not least because we have one thing in common: I, too, have a spouse who is a special needs teacher. We have many a conversation on a Friday night about how the day has gone, and about the experience, stresses and strains of teaching in an inner-city school.
    There is consensus about the existence of a problem: hon. Members agree about that. The question is what we do about it. The most disappointing aspect of the Opposition opening speech was the lack of ideas about how to tackle the current difficulties. The House does itself a disservice if we spend time wailing, gnashing our teeth and pulling our hair out about a problem instead of trying to identify practical solutions. However, I am glad to say that we have begun to do that in the later stages of the debate.
    I welcomed the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because he outlined practical steps. I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for reminding us of the facts about improved educational performance. It is important to recognise the success of teachers in our country, and not to be dragged down by the argument that standards are falling, which they are not.
    I want to mention briefly the reasons for the structure that we now have for getting more information about what happens in schools. I think that future historians will identify the famous moment in 1976 when Jim Callaghan made his Ruskin speech as the beginning of the process whereby Governments of all political persuasions have sought greater means to influence what happens in schools. He talked about the secret garden of the curriculum. More than a generation later, that secret garden is well and truly open.
    When some hon. Members talk about the burdens that are placed on teachers, we must acknowledge that the national curriculum and the inspection framework flowed from Jim Callaghan's speech, principally because these structures give us more information about what happens
    558
    in schools. Society now acknowledges that the success of our schools is partly due to, for example, the quality of the leadership and the approach to teaching. It is not simply a matter of leaving all schools to get on with it by themselves. We have a lot to learn from each other. That applies to teachers as much as to any other profession.
    We need to recognise that greater accountability has accompanied these changes. If we are honest, none of us finds greater accountability easy to accept. The teaching profession has experienced that in the past two decades, and the medical profession is beginning to do so. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who chairs the Education Sub-Committee, that respect for teachers is currently an important issue partly because parents are better informed and educated than they were in the past. The position of teachers as the fount of all knowledge, the people to whom we all look up because they know things that we do not, does not apply as much nowadays. Although it is difficult, teachers have to get used to that.
    Greater information about what happens in schools has also enabled the Government to say, "We can do better." I welcome that. Although we have always known that social background and previous educational attainment have a major impact on children's achievements, we realise increasingly how individual schools and leadership can make a difference.
    I want to highlight the case of one school in my constituency, Little London primary school, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State kindly opened a couple of months age after the fire that destroyed the old school. It is located in the 11th most deprived local authority ward in England and Wales. A high proportion of children receive free school meals. However, in the past three years, a dramatic improvement has occurred in the percentage of children achieving level 4 in English and maths, which has increased from the mid-20s to the mid-50s.
    The secret of that success has been good leadership, hard work, committed and dedicated teachers and the support of the literacy and numeracy strategies. They have been highlighted as an example of damaging Government intervention in schools, but the response of many head teachers and staff in the schools in my constituency tells me that that is not the case. They have focused effort on improvement, and ultimately the children benefit.
    I welcome today's debate because it keeps education at the forefront of our concerns. The Government and all hon. Members need to continue to hold an open dialogue with the teaching profession. Clearly, we must learn from teachers how we can give them more help to do the job that they want to do.
    I conclude with perhaps a slightly controversial point. We must all value teachers, and that includes teachers valuing themselves. Our job is to give support, praise and encouragement, but I believe that teachers should be more confident about what they are doing. When teachers say, "I am a teacher, I am proud of that and proud of the difference I make to children in my class. I believe that I am doing a good job," they will receive a "Hear, hear" from all hon. Members, and they will also encourage others who are considering teaching as a profession to become teachers.
    3.27 pm
    Mr. James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). Although I did not agree with all his remarks, I agree that we need to find new solutions to the current problems. However, we need to recognise the nature and scale of the problem and that the Government's current policies simply do not work. The evidence for that is clear in the numbers of teachers who are being recruited and the problems that schools face.
    We need to define the nature and scale of the problem because it has been suggested in same quarters that it is local, affects only one or two schools and that it can be solved if one or two schools get some extra teachers. It is a nationwide problem, which affects all types of school in every part of the country. In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned the problems of the private sector. Earlier this week, the Independent Schools Council, which represents 1,300 independent schools, complained of recruitment problems. Dulwich college, which is at the top of the academic league, has difficulty in attracting teachers. Other academically excellent schools in the state sector, such as Watford grammar school for boys and Watford grammar school for girls, experience difficulty in attracting teachers. I infer from all that that there is a problem throughout the country, especially in the south-east, where the most extreme manifestation of the crisis occurs.
    My constituency is no exception. I have referred to the difficulties of Watford grammar school for boys; those apply to all types of school in my constituency and throughout Hertfordshire. Let the teachers speak for themselves. In an NUT survey of schools in Hertfordshire, every school admitted suffering some staff shortages. The survey found that many teachers are turning to agency work to bypass the increasing bureaucratic burdens of teaching. It stated:
    Hertfordshire's children are often taught by short-term, daily supply teachers or are covered by non-specialists.
    That is not good enough for children in Hertfordshire, and it is not good enough for children in the rest of the country. It is not good for the hard-pressed, hard-working teachers in Hertfordshire and the rest of the country, who deserve our esteem. They should not be placed in that position.
    We have been told that we must be careful about the terms we use to describe this recruitment problem. I shall adopt the term that the Secretary of State used on the 'Today" programme in November last year. He said:
    Yes, there is a serious problem and had we not acted at the end of March I think we'd have been very close to meltdown.
    He went on to say that there had been a problem of recruitment in the early part of the last academic year, but that the policies that the Government had introduced, on top of the golden hellos, the training bursaries, the advertising programme, and the graduate teacher programme, had made a difference and had enabled teacher recruitment to turn the corner.
    The Secretary of State's credibility is not assisted by the fact that, at the very time he said that the recruitment
    560
    drive was close to meltdown, the Minister for School Standards was issuing press releases, such as that in December 1999, saying:
    These figures indicate encouraging progress in recruitment to teacher training. We have started to make a difference … The outlook for teacher recruitment is better than it has been for some time.
    Those are the views of the Minister, but at the same time the Secretary of State evidently thought that there was a crisis which was close to a meltdown.
    The important point is: what is the position today? What is the position now that the Government have implemented the policies that the Secretary of State has told us about—the golden hellos and the measures adopted in March last year, such as salaries for graduates entering teacher training? What is the position on recruitment to secondary teacher training, because the greatest problem is faced by secondary schools? In the academic year that commenced in September 2000, the number recruited for teacher training in secondary education was still well below the number recruited under the Conservative Government in the academic year beginning in 1996—there were 1,000 fewer recruits. More important than that, it was well below the Government's own target for secondary recruits—the figure that the Government say is needed for the future—and way below the number required in the shortage subjects of maths and foreign languages.
    What is happening in the current year? Suspiciously— I agree with the suspicions expressed elsewhere—the Graduate Teacher Training Registry has rushed out a press release showing the number of applications for teacher training so far this year. Last week, the Secretary of State put an optimistic spin on those figures at Question Time. He said:
    The measures that we have taken over the past few weeks have led to a dramatic improvement in the number of people seeking information or registering … Our measures have led to a massive increase in those registering an interest.—[Official Report, 11 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 1220.]
    He said that there had been a 100 per cent. increase in the number of people making general inquiries.
    What is the picture? How many people have applied for teacher training courses this year compared with last year? The number of secondary recruits is slightly up by 4 per cent. from the low point it was at last year. The number of recruits in key shortage subjects, such as maths and foreign languages, is down on last year, which was a poor year when the Government were way below the target that they needed to meet, especially in maths.
    A real crisis is building up in maths, because the Government are about 30 per cent. below their own target for the number of teachers required to teach that subject. As for the comments made about the numbers recruited under the Conservative Government to teach maths in secondary education, they were greater in every year of that Government than they are now. In some of those years, the figure was greater than the present Government's target, which they have manifestly failed to meet.
    Ministers must realise that, if the current situation is a problem, a crisis, a serious problem, a meltdown, or whatever we want to call it, it will get that much worse in the future. We need new thinking, because the Government's own statistics show that the policies they

    561
    have implemented are not working. We had good evidence of new thinking in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Ministers should listen to what she and many parents, teachers and heads are telling them about reducing bureaucratic burdens and restoring discipline in schools.
    The Government's policies are not working. We are on course for a much more serious problem. The Government will fail to put teachers in front of classes to teach children. We need new thinking to avoid that, and we have not got it at the moment.
    3.36 pm
    Ms Dari Taylor: I have great pleasure in contributing to this debate as I was a teacher in my early professional life and I have maintained a keen interest in education ever since. My pleasure is added to because I believe that the Government have got the policy right, and will continue to get it right. It is not just the policies on standards that are appropriate, but the funding has been superb and the teaching profession in my constituency has said so again and again.
    I am keen to put a local perspective on the debate. Schools in my local authority are not on a four-day week, and they are not threatened with a four-day week. Children are not being sent home early, and there is no evidence that teachers are being replaced by unqualified staff.
    I want to focus more particularly on my constituency. I was elected in 1997, and in each of the two previous years, 1995–97, the Conservative Administration had cut my local authority's education budget by £6 million. It had had to make 52 members of staff take early retirement or face redundancy. It is with great pleasure that I say to the House that, although it is a strain to fill all the posts, it is tremendous that there is demand in the system and we are seeking to supply it. Take it from me, that is a superb moment for the teaching profession. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is shaking his head. Teaching staff in my constituency will see his party's proposition as a shabby misrepresentation, and I am more than pleased to rub that in.
    I say to my Front-Bench colleagues with great care and passion—because that is my approach to life—that I have had robust meetings with head teachers in my constituency. They have been robust about the way in which they want the Government to respond to them, but there is serious pleasure at much of what we are doing. They are telling my right hon. Friend that, at times, the inspectorate undermines them and they want him to review its operation. They do not object to being inspected, but they want the process to be more proactive. They believe that that may happen now that there has been a change at the top. They like the fact that the standards debate is demanding and exacting, and they find that exciting. They are pleased at the way in which new maths at key stage 2 is being taught, and they say how much they have learned.
    I have much of value to say about education in Stockton, South. There is a demand for primary school teachers and schools in less-advantaged areas are struggling to fill posts, but they are doing so. There is a
    562
    demand for maths teachers, and we are finding that demand problematic, but we are filling the posts. Teachers tell me that the problems they face are those that the previous Administration left them.
    The Government made a commitment to people in Stockton, South, and I reinforced it, that five to seven-year-olds would be in classes of under 30 pupils. I have pleasure in telling the House that by September, we shall have achieved that goal. I am extremely pleased to make that statement, and I know that this has been achieved as a result of the way in which the Government have pursued that course of action. I also take great pleasure in telling hon. Members that 25 per cent. more 11-year-olds in my constituency will achieve key stage 2. That is tremendous.
    I would love to tell the House about the specialist schools in my constituency, and about the way in which we have received capital and standard spends that we did not have previously, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am aware that I do not have time to do so. However, I can say to my right hon. Friend that, in Stockton, South, there is serious pleasure and pride in all that the Government are doing. Of course, my constituents ask one thing: could we do more, and could we do it more speedily?
    3.40 pm
    Mr. Graham Brady: It is a great pleasure to be able to respond to an excellent short debate, which has taken place only because of the Conservative Opposition, who have again highlighted an extremely important issue for parents, schools and children throughout the country.
    The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—who has had to leave early—spoke at length and blamed everybody, in characteristic fashion. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—who is no longer in his piace—rightly described the Secretary of State's speech as mercifully brief, before going on to make a courageous attack on the Barnett formula, thus starting the election campaign in Scotland a little early.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made the point that Ministers have not yet replied to letters received from a school in his constituency, which were sent in September and October. [Interruption.] The Minister for School Standards seems to suggest that she wants to blame her officials for that, rather than take the rap herself. That is typical of Ministers in this Government, but she really ought to understand that it is the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that those things are done. The school in question is now out of special measures, but perhaps the Department for Education and Employment should be put into special measures to put right its failures.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) made a thoughtful speech. Sadly, I do not have time to deal with the interesting and intelligent points that he made, but I particularly enjoyed his tour of Jim Callaghan's secret garden. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) reminded the House in a timely manner that there is a serious problem in education nationwide, and it was important that he did so, particularly as the hon. Member for Stockton South (Ms Taylor) then returned us to the shocking complacency that has been characteristic of the Government's response on this serious crisis. Labour Members can be complacent if they wish, but

    563
    when David Hart of the National Association of Head Teachers says that teacher recruitment is "approaching meltdown", serious commentators and observers in the House and elsewhere know that there is a serious problem.
    The Secretary of State claims that there are more teachers, but he does not say how many are part time, or supply teachers. He does not say how many come from overseas, or are not of qualified teacher status. The breathtaking complacency of his speech was backed up by the contributions from Labour Members, while my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Secretary of State, was speaking. At that point, the only thing that Labour Members had to say was, "What would you do?" It became painfully obvious that hon. Members on the Government Benches were devoid of ideas. They have had four years in which they have generated this problem and made it worse. Now, all that they can do is ask us what we would do in their place.
    The Secretary of State generously accepted a policy suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, and it is welcome and right that he should do so. Why does he not let us put all our policy recommendations into practice? Let us cut out the middleman and solve all Labour's problems.
    The Secretary of State unwisely used the metaphor of the highwayman. In fact, the highwayman is Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer, who takes our tax but delivers no teachers. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) for his applause. The Secretary of State spoke of reduced class sizes leading to rising demand for teachers. However, he did not explain that class sizes are going up in primary schools, secondary schools and reception classes. Even the 30-in-a-class limit that the Government pledged is, according to the January-February issue of The Teacher magazine, now under threat because of the Government's failures in teacher recruitment. The Government really ought to start taking this problem seriously, but the Secretary of State showed no signs of doing so.
    The Secretary of State spoke of the weeks that it takes to process applications, but he has had four years in office, and he must now take responsibility for the crisis that is evident in the nation's schools. We have had nothing from the Government apart from gimmicks, new schemes and new initiatives. The hon. Member for Huddersfield talked about Lord Puttnam's staff room of the future, which he said had never emerged.
    Mr. Sheerman: I did not say that.
    Mr. Brady: I think the record will demonstrate that he did.
    Earlier in this Parliament, the Government pledged that people on the new deal were going to be brought into the classrooms to work as classroom assistants. In 1998, the Government trumpeted a trial that was to be run in two areas of Wales—Cardiff and, I think, Wrexham—to see how many unemployed people could be brought in through the new deal to work as classroom assistants in Wales. However, a few weeks ago, when I asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many classroom assistants had been brought into schools under the new deal, I was told that information on the destination of new deal participants was not collected at that level of detail. The proposal was just another gimmick, another initiative not followed up, that did not help our schools.
    564
    Education action zones were an experiment but, according to The Times Educational Supplement, the existing 73 are now being quietly halted.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Wrong.
    Mr. Brady: The Minister says that I am wrong, but the Government did not bother to dispute that at the time.
    The Secretary of State referred to the Teacher Training Agency hotline with glowing praise. That was one of the main fig-leaves that he clutched when trying to protect his failures in teacher recruitment. When I phoned the TTA hotline this morning, I received a response that might explain why there have been so many more calls to the line recently. When I dialed the number, I was told that all the consultants were engaged. The Secretary of State will say that that is positive, because the service is so popular. I was then asked whether I would like to be sent a brochure rather than wait to speak to somebody. I said, "No, I would like to speak to somebody." The person I was talking to asked whether I would like to enter the queueing system. I said, "Yes", whereupon I was told, "Good luck". [Interruption.] The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities is calling this a stunt. It was quite the reverse, because I went to the trouble of finding out what the Government are doing about teacher recruitment and I found the service to be an appalling failure. The hotline is the stunt. When I had waited for three minutes, I was cut off without any response. I can assure hon. Members that I was prepared to wait for longer.
    The Secretary of State said that teachers should be left to teach, but he is on record as saying that teachers should become learning managers in charge of what are now being described as bodies being put in front of a class. The trouble with bringing unqualified teachers, or anyone who is able to fill the gap, into a classroom is that it does not deliver what parents or schools want, or what children need. Parents do not want learning managers; they want teachers. Teachers do not want to be learning managers. They want respect for their professionalism, and the space to be allowed to teach.
    Nigel de Gruchy of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—a body that the Secretary of State now appears to hold in low esteem—has commented that
    the Government seems to have thrown in the towel—
    on teacher recruitment. He goes on to say that
    substituting adults with unspecified qualifications for teachers is a policy of despair.
    [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, The hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), can chunter as much as she likes from the Government Front Bench. When her former friends in the teaching unions are now describing the Government's education policy as a "policy of despair", the Government really ought to take it seriously and consider where the problem lies.
    The problem exists across the country. Positions are being filled by overseas teachers. Schools are being forced to recruit new teachers from Australia over the telephone. The press in my area—the Manchester Evening News — reports, under the headline "G'day Manchester", that an army of Australian teachers is being flown in to stop the recruitment crisis. Overseas teachers consider this country

    565
    a base while they do Europe. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that that is good. It is good if they stay in the long term. It is good if they are sufficiently educated and sufficiently qualified and if they know the ways of the British education system. It is not good, the Secretary of State should admit, if they have been brought here for a short period to fill a gap. It is not good—[Interruption.]
    The Secretary of State can try to make a joke, but it is not good if Australian teachers or teachers from around the world come here in rapid succession and stay for just a term or a matter of weeks. Children will not have a teacher whom they can come to rely on. That is another part of the crisis, which is of his and Labour's making. We need free schools—schools with the freedom to run their own affairs and teachers who have the freedom to teach. All that the Government have to offer is bureaucracy, gimmicks and spin. It is time for a change.
    3.50 pm
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I am not sure how to respond to the announcement that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who spent the morning ringing the Teacher Training Agency hotline, is seeking an alternative career. Perhaps congratulations are in order from us, and commiserations from his colleagues. Helpful as ever, I shall make sure that his call is returned so that he can fill in an application form and add to the 10 per cent. increase in applications for initial teacher training that have already been received this year.
    Seriously, I begin by thanking hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I readily accept that all Members, no matter which side they represent, consider teaching an important issue. All constituency MPs care about their schools; all parents care about their children. On that, at least, I can start with a measure of agreement. I also acknowledge the generous and correct way in which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) described the achievement of teachers and the way in which standards have been raised.
    Support came from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), who represents a constituency of considerable challenge where generation after generation of children has lost out in the education service. I suspect not only that the school in Little London to which he referred has no history of sending children to university and higher education, but that its children come from families whose members have never attended university.
    Although one may refer to the increase in literacy and numeracy standards, the figures for the standards agenda that please me most are those showing that, for the first time, standards of literacy and numeracy and for GCSE are increasing across the country, in all neighbourhoods. The fastest rate of improvement is in schools and local authorities that under-achieved in the past. Closing the gap between performance in poor and rich neighbourhoods, between those from different ethnic minorities and between boys and girls is the real mark of an education service that is being transformed so that it will never go back to being a lottery in which receiving a good standard of education depends on which school a person attends.
    566
    That improvement has been achieved only because of the increasing quality of teaching. No matter what anybody says about the difficulties and the challenges facing schools—I shall come to those—the truth is that the quality of teaching in our primary and secondary schools has shot up. It is better than last year, better than three years ago and certainly better than when I and many Members of the House were teaching nine or 10 years ago. That is a tribute to the teaching profession.
    I am the first to acknowledge that more is asked of teachers than was ever asked of any previous generation of teachers. More is expected because the Government are asking teachers to end the cycle of under-achievement in some of our neighbourhoods and to become the first generation of teachers to work with the Government so that both can say, "We raised standards, not for a few, but for every child in every school, no matter which part of the country those children live in."
    Yes, recruitment is difficult, and I want to acknowledge the challenges that many schools face. I thank teachers who take cover lessons. There is not a Member of the House who has been a teacher who does not know that that is the least favourite task of any teacher. It gives me no pride or satisfaction to say so, but I know that some of the teacher recruitment troubles that schools face are not new. I am afraid that the same problems existed when I was teaching. We lost cover lessons. I taught combined classes. Classes had a list of supply teachers over the terms. I know that that is not good, not right and not the way that we want it to be.
    The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central and for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) gave a proper evaluation and analysis of what is happening, and that is what we should all do. The truth is that this nation's inability to recruit the brightest and the best to teaching at any time other than one of economic recession or depression is one of its saddest aspects. That has held back progress in our schools for too long, and it is what we inherited.
    I shall not quote statistics back to the House or give masses of figures for 1992–94 or 1994–97. We can play games and score points, but, as was borne out by the report by Professor Alan Smithers, we were below target on secondary recruitment every single year in the 1990s, unless the economy was in recession. That was the Tories' one-club approach to solving the teacher crisis: hang on, wait for a recession and more people will want to go into teaching.
    The challenge for the Government has been breaking that cycle, and we have broken it. It has always been difficult to recruit teachers in the British economy, so from the moment we, took office, we introduced a series of initiatives and measures that are having a real impact on the number and quality of people coming into schools. On retention, the Government have not introduced a staged pay increase. Indeed, we have given a fully-funded above-inflation pay Increase every single year. We have introduced performance-related pay as an incentive for teachers who teach well to stay in schools, get promotion and earn more money without taking on administrative responsibilities.

    567
    We are the Government who introduced the golden hellos and reversed the decline in recruitment to shortage subjects for the first time since the recession of the early and mid-1990s. We are the Government who introduced the training salaries. Under our Government, those who want to return to teaching in London can not only go on a course for no charge, but get paid £150 a week to do so. We are the Government who are bringing 12,000 returners back to our classrooms. In terms of retention and attracting the best, under our Government, a training salary of £15,000 can assist those who want to train to teach in a shortage subject to do so through the fast-track approach.
    The real test of whether we are right and whether we have fulfilled our obligations to the teaching community and the children of this country is whether those initiatives are working. They have been costed and carefully implemented. They are based on evidence and targeted on the areas of greatest need and, yes, they are working. That is why last year, for the first time, the decline in the number of people training as teachers was reversed. That was not imagined, nor was it due to us counting the numbers. It was nothing to do with spin. Real bodies—men and women—went to train as teachers last year, and there has been a 9 per cent. increase. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was right: the increase is greater in primary than in secondary schools, but there has been an increase in secondary schools as well.
    Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?
    Ms Morris: No, I do not have time.
    That increase should be added to the number of people taking graduate-based routes. This is the beginning of a turnaround. I am not saying that that is enough. I know that we are still not hitting our targets. I know that the maths figures are still 3 per cent. below last year's, even though the figures for chemistry, for example, are 33 per cent. up on those for this time last year. The figures for biology are up as well. [Interruption.] That is not complacency; it is a mark of a Government who have grasped the teacher recruitment problem. The figures represent not hanging around for a recession, but bucking the trend in times of economic strength in this nation. That is what we have done.
    I put this challenge to the Opposition: their one policy, apart from waiting for a recession, is to take away the paperwork. Not only would they take away the paperwork, but they have failed to guarantee the education budget. They guarantee only the budget for a school. They would take away training salaries, golden hellos and recruitment strategy managers—all the initiatives that have not only helped recruitment, but supported teachers. They would take away learning support units, excellence in cities and education action zones. All are centrally funded through the standards fund.
    Teachers are the most important professionals in our society. The jobs that they do on behalf of us all are immeasurably valuable, and we owe them our thanks. With us, teachers also have the support of the Government.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 309.

    Division No. 66]

    [4 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Amess, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Lansley, Andrew

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Leigh, Edward

    Baldry, Tony

    Letwin, Oliver

    Beggs, Roy

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Bercow, John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Loughton, Tim

    Boswell, Tim

    Luff, Peter

    Brady, Graham

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Brazier, Julian

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Burns, Simon

    Malins, Humfrey

    Butterfill, John

    Maples, John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Mates, Michael

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Clappison, James

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Moss, Malcolm

    (Rushcliffe)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Norman, Archie

    Collins, Tim

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Ottaway, Richard

    Cran, James

    Page, Richard

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Paice, James

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Pickles, Eric

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Prior, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Robathan, Andrew

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Evans, Nigel

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Faber, David

    Ruffley, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Fallon, Michael

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gale, Roger

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Spring, Richard

    Gibb, Nick

    Steen, Anthony

    Gill, Christopher

    Streeter, Gary

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Swayne, Desmond

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Syms, Robert

    Gray, James

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Grieve, Dominic

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hammond, Philip

    Tredinnick, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Trend, Michael

    Hayes, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    Walter, Robert

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Waterson, Nigel

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Wells, Bowen

    Horam, John

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Hunter, Andrew

    Wilkinson, John

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Willetts, David

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Key, Robert

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Mr. John Randall and

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Alexander, Douglas

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Allan, Richard

    Ainger, Nick

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Ashton, Joe

    569

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Dobbin, Jim

    Austin, John

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Bailey, Adrian

    Dowd, Jim

    Ballard, Jackie

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Banks, Tony

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Barnes, Harry

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Barron, Kevin

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Edwards, Huw

    Beard, Nigel

    Efford, Clive

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Etherington, Bill

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Feam, Ronnie

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Fisher, Mark

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Benton, Joe

    Flint, Caroline

    Berry, Roger

    Flynn, Paul

    Best, Harold

    Follett, Barbara

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Blizzard, Bob

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Foulkes, George

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gapes, Mike

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Gardiner, Barry

    Brake, Tom

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Gerrard, Neil

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Browne, Desmond

    Gidley, Sandra

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Burden, Richard

    Godsiff, Roger

    Burgon, Colin

    Goggins, Paul

    Burstow, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Grogan, John

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Caton, Martin

    Hancock, Mike

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hanson, David

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Chaytor, David

    Healey, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clelland, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Cohen, Harry

    Hope, Phil

    Coleman, Iain

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Colman, Tony

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Corston, Jean

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cotter, Brian

    Hutton, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cox, Tom

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Crausby, David

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jamieson, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Darvill, Keith

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

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

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Denham, John

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Dismore, Andrew

    Joyce, Eric

    570

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Pound, Stephen

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Rammell, Bill

    Khabra, Piara S

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kidney, David

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Rendel, David

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Rogers, Allan

    Lammy, David

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Roy, Frank

    Laxton, Bob

    Ruane, Chris

    Lepper, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Linton, Martin

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Love, Andrew

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sawford, Phil

    McCabe, Steve

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Sheerman, Barry

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Singh, Marsha

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Skinner, Dennis

    Macdonald, Calum

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McDonnell, John

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    McFall, John

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Snape, Peter

    McWalter, Tony

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    McWilliam, John

    Spellar, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mallaber, Judy

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stevenson, George

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Martlew, Eric

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Maxton, John

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Meale, Alan

    Stringer, Graham

    Merron, Gillian

    Stunell, Andrew

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Miller, Andrew

    Mitchell, Austin

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Morley, Elliot

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

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

    Timms, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mountford, Kali

    Todd, Mark

    Mudie, George

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Mullin, Chris

    Truswell, Paul

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Tyler, Paul

    Öpik, Lembit

    Tynan, Bill

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Pearson, Ian

    Wareing, Robert N

    Pickthall, Colin

    Watts, David

    Pike, Peter L

    White, Brian

    Plaskitt, James

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pond, Chris

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Pope, Greg

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    571

    Wood, Mike

    Wyatt, Derek

    Woolas, Phil

    Worthington, Tony

    Wray, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Mr. Clive Betts and

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Mr. Don Touhig.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 151.

    division No. 67]

    [4.13 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cox, Tom

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Crausby, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Darvill, Keith

    Ashton, Joe

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Davidson, Ian

    Austin, John

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bailey, Adrian

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

    Banks, Tony

    Barnes, Harry

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Barron, Kevin

    Denham, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dismore, Andrew

    Beard, Nigel

    Dobbin,, Jim

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Dowd, Jim

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Benton, Joe

    Edwards, Huw

    Berry, Roger

    Efford, Clive

    Best, Harold

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Etherington, Bill

    Blizzard, Bob

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Fisher, Mark

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Flint, Caroline

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Flynn, Paul

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Follett, Barbara

    Browne, Desmond

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Burden, Richard

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Burgon, Colin

    Foulkes, George

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Galloway George

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Caton, Martin

    Gerard, Neil

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Chaytor, David

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clapham, Michael

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Grogan,, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hain, Peter

    Clelland, David

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hanson, David

    Coleman, Iain

    Healey, John

    Colman, Tony

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Heppell, John

    Corston, Jean

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    572

    Hood, Jimmy

    Morley, Elliot

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

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

    Hope, Phil

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Mountford, Kali

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mudie, George

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hutton, John

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jamieson, David

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jenkins, Brian

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pearson, Ian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Pond, Chris

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Joyce, Eric

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Rammell, Bill

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Kidney, David

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Rogers, Allan

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Roy, Frank

    Lammy, David

    Ruane, Chris

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Ruddock, Joan

    Laxton, Bob

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Lepper, David

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Linton, Martin

    Sawford, Phil

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Love, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McCabe, Steve

    Singh, Marsha

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McDonnell, John

    McFall, John

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Snape, Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    McNulty, Tony

    Spellar, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    McWalter, Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McWilliam, John

    Stevenson, George

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Martlew, Eric

    Stringer, Graham

    Maxton, John

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Meale, Alan

    Merron, Gillian

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Timms, Stephen

    Moffatt, Laura

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    573

    Tipping, Paddy

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Todd, Mark

    Truswell, Paul

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Wood, Mike

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Worthington, Tony

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Tynan, Bill

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Wyatt, Derek

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Watts, David

    Mr. Don Touhig and

    White, Brian

    Mr. Clive Betts.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Faber, David

    Allan, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Amess, David

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Right, Howard

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Ballard, Jackie

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beggs, Roy

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Fraser, Christopher

    Bercow, John

    Gale, Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Boswell, Tim

    Gidley, Sandra

    Brady, Graham

    Gill, Christopher

    Brake, Tom

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Brazier, Julian

    Gray, James

    Breed, Colin

    Grieve, Dominic

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hammond, Philip

    Burns, Simon

    Hancock, Mike

    Burstow, Paul

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Butterfill, John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Hayes, John

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Heald, Oliver

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Chope, Christopher

    Horam, John

    Clappison, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Collins, Tim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Cotter, Brian

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Cran, James

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Key, Robert

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Day, Stephen

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Duncan, Alan

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Lansley, Andrew

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Nigel

    Letwin, Oliver

    574

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Loughton, Tim

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Luff, Peter

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

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Steen, Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stunell, Andrew

    Malins, Humfrey

    Swayne, Desmond

    Maples, John

    Syms, Robert

    Mates, Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Townend, John

    Norman, Archie

    Tredinnick, David

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Trend, Michael

    Öpik, Lembit

    Tyler, Paul

    Viggers, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Walter, Robert

    Page, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Paice, James

    Wells, Bowen

    Pickles, Eric

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Prior, David

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Wilkinson, John

    Rendel, David

    Willetts, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ruffley, David

    Mr. John Randall and

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the enormous strides taken over the last three years to make teaching a more attractive profession; particularly welcomes the introduction of a new career structure and performance-related pay to assist retention, a greater emphasis on continuing professional development and the development of golden hellos in shortage subjects and teacher training salaries, which mean that there are more people training to be teachers now than at any time in the last eight years; further welcomes the practical steps taken by the Government to assist headteachers facing recruitment problems in some areas and the measures which have been taken to reduce needless bureaucracy in schools; applauds the improved achievement levels by both primary and secondary pupils, the big reduction in infant class sizes since 1997 and the substantial increase in teaching assistants and learning mentors to offer practical support to pupils and teachers; and notes that the number of teachers in post is higher than at any time in the last decade as a direct result of greater investment in education by the Government, and that the School Teachers' Review Body will report soon.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.23 pm
  Miss Aim Widdecombe: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's failure to fulfil its manifesto commitment strongly to support the police; notes that police numbers in England and Wales were rising when the Government came into office; regrets the decline in police numbers of more than 2,500 since the General Election, including the loss of 1,900 constables, contrary to the Government's manifesto pledge to get more officers back on the beat: further regrets the dramatic decline of one third in the number of special constables; notes the comments of senior police figures that policing is in a state of crisis; condemns the Government's decision to release before serving half their prison sentences more than 200 criminals convicted of assaulting police officers; notes with regret the low level of police morale and the 60 per cent. rise in voluntary resignations from the police since the Government came to power; and calls on the Government urgently to take measures to improve morale in the police force, to restore police numbers at least to the levels they inherited, and to increase the visibility of the police in order better to protect the public at a time when violent crime is soaring.
  I quote:
  The police have our strong support. They are in the front line of the fight against crime and disorder. We will … get more officers back on the beat.
  Those are striking words, and Labour Members should remember them well. They are printed on page 22 of the Labour party manifesto for the 1997 general election.
  The Home Secretary told the police Federation in May 1997 that
  the police have my wholehearted support and the wholehearted support of this new Government. We will do all that we can to ensure our police service is strong and effective. We will also support you by providing the protection and the resources you require.
  However, as with so many manifesto promises, it has been all spin and no delivery. No one doubts that policing in this country is in a state of crisis. The chairman of the Police Federation has said that there is
  a crisis of no confidence, a crisis of no cash and a crisis of no colleagues.
  Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, talked only last month of a crisis in the policing of London. As long ago as June, he warned the Home Secretary:
  We do not have enough officers to police London with confidence.
  Figures given this week by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), show that 29 of the 32 divisions in London are below budgeted strength. The chief constable of Lincolnshire has said:
  Police forces are struggling with the stark facts that police numbers have fallen, workload has increased and budgets have not grown.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem exists in parts of the country other than Norwich and London? The office of the chief constable of Staffordshire has told me that, on Friday and Saturday nights, there are just three police
  576
  officers, backed up by a small band of special constables, to police the entire Lichfield area. Does she consider that adequate?
  Miss Widdecombe: No; it is entirely disgraceful. Even more regrettable is the fact that it is by no means untypical. Many police forces are telling their Members of Parliament about exactly the same sort of unacceptable policing levels, which prevail not just on Friday and Saturday nights, but on other nights as well.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I spoke to police officers in my constituency last Friday, and they told me that the biggest disincentive to recruitment in the south-east was the removal of the housing allowance in 1994. I seem to remember that a Conservative Government were in power at that time. Will she say why that Government took away that allowance?
  Miss Widdecombe: Police numbers rose after that date, which suggests that removal of the allowance was not the disincentive that the hon. Gentleman claims.
  This month, the magazine Public Finance reported:
  Police authorities are warning of a tight year ahead, despite the seemingly generous 10 per cent. funding increase announced in November … local budgets are set to increase by a more modest 5 per cent … Police forces face increased costs of 5.6 per cent. just to keep their heads above water … this will leave many authorities with significant shortfalls.
  The chief constable of Cumbria has said that his force
  will be facing cuts again next year.
  No one in his right mind can doubt that policing is in a state of crisis.
  Ms Hazel Blears: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I will shortly, but I want to make some progress. Only the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary cling to the notion that policing is not in crisis. The Home Secretary told the House on 12 December that he did not believe that policing was in crisis. On 17 May last year, the House was treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister trying to defend his Government's indefensible record by declaring that he did not believe that policing was "in crisis". On the same day, the Home Secretary addressed the Police Federation conference in front of letters 3 ft high that spelled out the conference theme, which was "Policing in Crisis". Beyond doubt, this Government have brought about that crisis in policing.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a recent Audit Commission report that measured public confidence in the police, force by force. It found that, in Norfolk, public confidence in police on the beat stood at only 8 per cent., the second lowest level in the country. Does she agree that that lack of confidence results not from the performance of the police who, given their resources, do well, but from the fact that Norfolk has lost 44 officers since the 1997 election? The Government have also failed to take notice of the advice that they commissioned with regard to the problems of policing in sparsely populated rural areas. What would my right hon. Friend do about the problem?
  Miss Widdecombe: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. By coincidence, I have here a few more figures

  577
  on Norfolk. Not only has there been a decline of 44 regular officers since the election, but while 23 special constables have joined, 70 have left. That is a double whammy for the Norfolk police.
  My right hon. Friend asks, quite reasonably, what I would do. We have said that we will do several things. First, we will get police numbers back to at least what they were when we left office.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall continue answering my right hon. Friend first. After that I am indebted to the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) for an intervention, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  As I was saying, getting police numbers back to what they were when we left office should not be so impossible, given that we were maintaining and funding those numbers only three and a half years ago. Furthermore, we have said that it is not enough simply to get the numbers up. It is crucial to make sure that policemen spend their time policing, not pen-pushing in stations. Therefore, in co-operation with the police, we shall carry out a comprehensive review of all their functions, with the aim of removing inessential and unnecessary tasks and giving them to other bodies to perform. In that way, the police may do what they joined up to do and what the public expect them to do—that is, to be in the front line against crime.
  Maria Eagle: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I am still answering my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I have been asked what we would do and the list is quite long.
  We have said that we will take specific measures to increase visibility in rural areas, such as having police spend some time doing necessary paperwork in public places rather than just whizzing through villages and going back to the police station. We have said that we will consider a national police cadet force. We have said that we will consider better use of part-timers. We have said that we will consider reusing the skills of those who have retired and whose skills are lost to the force. We have said that we might even look at retained policemen in rural areas in the same way as we look at retained firemen. We have further said that we will free up parish councils where necessary, to make their own policing arrangements. That is a comprehensive package, and I urge the Home Secretary to be big enough to learn from it and adopt some of its measures.
  Ms Blears: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. If policing is in such crisis—and she paints a terrible picture—why, in December last year, did Greater Manchester police recruit 65 new officers to the force, the largest number it has ever recruited? Why does it have £6 million extra, through a generous budget settlement, to distribute to forces for front-line policing? That is not the kind of crisis that I recognise from the right hon. Lady's comments.
  Miss Widdecombe: It would appear that the hon. Lady is at odds with every chief constable whom I have so far quoted. They believe that the police have a problem.
  578
  The hon. Lady refers to recruitment. What about retention, wastage, resignation and sickness rates? The hon. Lady cannot simply be selective and quote one figure.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), as I promised, and then make some more progress before giving way again.
  Mr. Beard: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Is it not a strange time to cry crisis, when the right hon. Lady knows full well that police numbers have been in decline since 1993, and that this is the first time recruitment has turned around? Is it also not strange to claim that there is a crisis when the number of recruits in training has gone up by 74 per cent.? Is not this part of a stunt to create gloom and despondency and a climate of fear, in the hope that something might be gained electorally for her party?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman should read less party political propaganda from Millbank and rather more facts from the Home Office statistical bulletins, to which I will now turn. He will find that just about every one of his points is either completely wrong as fact or has been taken out of context and does not stand up when considered against other factors.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I did say that I was going to make progress, but because the right hon. Gentleman is who he is, I will give way.
  Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady. Does she agree with the shadow Chancellor that spending under a Conservative Government should rise by only 2.2 per cent. a year in real terms?
  Miss Widdecombe: That is to misquote the shadow Chancellor. For the moment—not for much longer—the right hon. Gentleman represents the Government, and it is their record that I am about to examine, whether he likes it or not. I do not think that he will like the following examination very much.
  The Government's manifesto promised to get more police back on the beat. However, since 1997, overall police numbers have fallen by more than 2,500. That figure includes a drop of more than 1,900 in the number of constables. In May 1997, the Home Secretary told the Police Federation that constables were central to the success of the police
  the visible presence of the police on our streets is a traditional strength of British policing which is more, not less important in today's environment.
  Yet the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, published two days ago, show that there are 1,900 fewer full-time constables and more than 6,000 fewer special constables under this Government—a fall of one third. Yet again, all spin and no delivery.

  579
  The standard defence of ill-informed Labour Members is that police numbers have been falling steadily since 1993. However, that defence fails to acknowledge that numbers rose in the year before the Government came to power and, crucially, that the number of constables rose year on year throughout that period. Furthermore, the number of special constables was rising when the Government came to power. Labour Members need not take my word for it. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South, revealed yesterday in a written answer that in March 1993 there were 95,501 constables in England and Wales. That figure rose year on year until the election, until in March 1997 there were 96,914 constables. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford can work out that that was an increase of 1,413 since 1993.
  Under this Government, the visible presence of the police on our streets has suffered. There are more than 1,900 fewer constables, nearly 400 fewer sergeants, more than 250 fewer inspectors—all round, there are fewer front-line crime fighters.
  What does the Home Secretary have to say to the 62-year-old resident of the Warwick estate at Knottingley, near Pontefract? He is terrorised in his own home by gangs of youths, and has put the local police station number on his list in his British Telecom friends and family discount scheme because he has to make daily calls for help. He says:
  I am frightened to death. It's unbearable … I can't live like this. The police, as individuals, are very good, but we need more of them on the streets, patrolling the estate.
  That is the view of the majority of people in this country.
  Maria Eagle: Will the right hon Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am going to make some progress, but I remember that the hon. Lady has been trying to intervene and I will give way to her in a little while.
  As the new Audit Commission figures show, 57 per cent. of people are unhappy with the number of police on our streets. We saw on Tuesday the announcement of what was billed by the Home Secretary's spin doctors as a massive 74 per cent. increase in police recruitment, a figure repeated in today's Government amendment. The right hon. Gentleman neglects to point out, however, that that is, of course, a 74 per cent. increase compared to last year, which saw the lowest numbers recruited for many years.
  He does not draw attention to the fact that, last year, the number of police recruits was just over 4,000, whereas the year before the previous general election the number was 6,500. That very much puts into perspective what he bills as a massive increase.
  Rather than increasing under the Labour Government, police recruitment is only now returning to the numbers inherited by the Government after it had been allowed to fall by nearly a third. On Tuesday, the chairman of the Police Federation hit that particular nail right on the head, when he said:
  All additional officers are welcome but if you have previously failed to recruit adequately, then any increase will look positive.
  The Home Secretary fools no one with his repeated attempts to spin police recruitment statistics. People wised up to the right hon. Gentleman's methods after they found
  580
  out exactly how his spin doctors misled the Labour party and the country with that fiddled conference pledge in October 1999.
  Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. I am listening carefully to her speech. During the 18 minutes of the first part of her speech, she has not once mentioned crime rates. Is that because they have fallen by 7 per cent?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am coming to that.
  Maria Eagle: Does the right hon. Lady believe that there is a direct correlation between the number of officers in post, recruited and working—I approve of the increase in numbers—and falling crime rates?
  Miss Widdecombe: I certainly believe that there is a direct correlation between the number of police on the street, the overall level of crime and particular types of crime. The hon. Lady has a treat in store because I am indeed going to turn to the crime figures fairly soon—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Martin Linton: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way once more, but as I have given way several times, I want to make some progress.
  Mr. Linton: I thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy. Does she agree that in the period that she chooses to cite—March 1993 to March 1997—the total number of police fell from 128,290 to 127,158? Who is spinning now?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman really is clutching at straws. He ignores the fact that the only reason my comments are based on those years is because they are a direct response to a comment from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who chose that particular period. Furthermore, police numbers rose by 16,000 during our time in office and, in the last year of that period—before we handed over to his incompetent lot—police numbers were rising.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Well, I should not give way because I said that I would not, but I will.
  Mr. Howarth: I am conscious that my right hon. Friend is going to leave the question of recruitment, but before she does so, will she address the difficult situation that prevails in Hampshire? The chief constable points out that although the crimefighting fund has funded another 82 police officers, he cannot recruit them. He has to defer 62 appointments until next year. In his letter to Members of Parliament, he states:
  I am not convinced that any realistic solution is in sight … The current shortfall in numbers is however placing unacceptable strains on my colleagues and is selling your constituents short.

  581
  That is what the Labour Government are doing to our police force in Hampshire.
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I had intended to use that very quotation from the chief constable of Hampshire. It is crucial; it echoes statements made by the other chief constables whom I have quoted and by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It should give the Home Secretary pause for thought in the completely unrealistic complacency in which he appears to be wallowing.
  The Home Secretary always produces figures that are either fiddled or muddled, such as the ethnic minority recruitment statistics. Last month, his Department trumpeted a rise of 218 officers in the Metropolitan police, but this month the statistics were "revised" to show an increase of just four. That completes the hat trick of muddled figures published by his Department—after the 248 Met officers seconded to central services in March, who were double-counted, and the 451 seconded to neighbouring forces, who were deducted twice from the overall total for September. Perhaps he would like me to give him an abacus for Christmas—then he might do better.
  Even recent increases in recruitment do not appear to be solving the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) rightly says, the chief constable of Hampshire recently wrote to local MPs and council leaders, revealing that, by the end of this financial year, he expects to recruit 95 fewer officers than his target figure. That is not good news for the people of Hampshire, and if the situation is replicated in other forces it is even worse news for the rest of the country.
  According to the Minister of State, Home Office, three forces—Hertfordshire, Essex and City of London—have so far failed to recruit a single person through the crimefighting fund, despite their combined allocation of 118 for this financial year. They have not found one recruit between them. In other areas, such as Gloucestershire and Doncaster, forces are unable to recruit to their target numbers because of a lack of training facilities.
  This morning, the Yorkshire Post reported that West Yorkshire police are
  to recruit teenage volunteers in the absence of money for more uniformed officers.
  The Home Secretary is aware that I have been calling for a police cadet force for some time. However, there is a difference between recruiting young people to a cadet force to introduce them to the role that the police play in society—encouraging them to join the force later on—and recruiting such young people as an immediate replacement for regular beat officers. Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on that announcement when he winds up the debate.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister of State, Home Office sent me a helpful written answer today, informing me that even with the crimefighting fund, by the end of the next financial year-2002–03there will be fewer police officers than there were at the end of March 1997.
  Miss Widdecombe: One wonders how many more examples hon. Members will have to produce before the
  582
  Home Secretary will actually believe that he is presiding over one of the biggest crises in police recruitment and in police numbers that has ever been known.
  As we know from the aftermath of the right hon. Gentleman's 1999 conference speech, overall police numbers are determined not only by recruitment, but by the number of officers who leave. Yesterday, we learned that the Metropolitan police had revised their projected wastage figures upwards by more than a quarter since April. At the halfway point in this financial year, other forces had lost far more officers than projected; for example, Bedfordshire's projected wastage for the whole year to March was 45, but by 30 September the force had already lost 37 officers. Perhaps the Minister of State will also comment on those figures.
  The chairman of the Police Federation says that morale is now the worst that he has ever seen. In late 1999, a national survey of 6,000 serving officers showed that more than two thirds would leave the force if they were offered another job. In Suffolk, the recent Police Federation survey showed that half the officers felt morale was low—just one in 10 thought that it was high.
  If the Home Secretary will not take the word of the Police Federation and that of thousands of serving police officers, perhaps he will take the word of his own deputy, the Minister of State. After I asked the Minister to make a statement about police morale, he told the House in a written answer on 11 December that the numbers leaving the police force were an indicator of morale, and then proceeded to reveal that voluntary resignations from the police had gone up by 60 per cent. under the Labour Government.
  It is no wonder that police morale is so low, when they are completely hamstrung by new Labour bureaucracy—so much so that the chief constable of Lincolnshire says:
  In my force best value bureaucracy is costing over £400,000 a year … and we are in danger of sinking under a sea of targets and measures.
  Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I want to make some progress and then I shall give way.
  Chief Inspector Ray Shepherd of West Yorkshire police says:
  Is Charles Clarke, the Home Office Minister, being fed so much nonsense that he isn't aware that police officers nowadays have far more paperwork to complete than ever before? … We could all make a list of the additional paperwork that creates a bureaucratic nightmare for officers who want to spend more time actually delivering the goods … The situation is far more frustrating nowadays than at any time in my 28 years' service. The public is getting a raw deal.
  No wonder police morale is so low when officers see thousands of the criminals whom they have put so much effort into detaining, being given the "get out of jail free" card by the Home Secretary on his special early release scheme, and when they face the type of crisis that only the Prime Minister denies exists. No wonder morale is low when the Prime Minister's crony and confidant, Lord Falconer, condemns the police for being "riddled with racism".
  No wonder morale is low when an article in this month's Police Federation magazine is entitled, "Behind Closed Doors: Federation Vice Chair Jan Berry sets out

  583
  the reasons for withdrawal from Home Office secret talks." So the Home Secretary has, after all, and contrary to what he told the House on 20 November 2000 about being "perfectly open", been holding secret talks about the "new agenda for reform" that the Prime Minister said last year risked
  alienating the police at a crucial time.
  Mr. Straw: Is the right hon. Lady not aware that, far from those talks being secret, the Police Federation has been invited fully to participate in them?
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and Jan Berry has withdrawn from what she describes as secret talks, so presumably the talks that she was invited to participate in were behind the closed doors of the Home Office. It is she who says that they were secret. it is she who believed that she was summoned in secret. Anyway, as a result of the article, they certainly are not secret now.
  Where is the Government's support for the police when, under the Home Secretary' s own special early release policy, more than 200 criminals convicted of assaulting police officers have been released before serving even half their sentence? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to the men and women of the police service, when prisoners released on his early release scheme have committed 25 further assaults on police officers when, but for his scheme, they would still have been in jail? It is yet another kick in the teeth for the police from the Government.
  What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to the police officers who were the victims of those assaults? Will the right hon. Gentleman, even now, apologise to them, despite previous refusals to do so? Will he, even now, undertake to stop the release of these criminals, despite his previous refusals to do so? The Home Secretary's refusal to apologise and his voting record on that issue, which is plain for all to see, provides the clearest possible indicator of the worth of his promises to support the police.
  Before I move on to the crime statistics, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) is waiting for, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies)—if he still wants to intervene. It seems that he does not.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Is it not the case that in the Met, reductions in sickness, which are an indication of morale, have led to an effective increase in the force of an extra 500 police? Is it not also the case that wastage rates, in terms of retirement and resignation, are half the average of those for civil servants? [Laughter.] It is no use laughing; those are facts.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman would have done better not to intervene, because we have demonstrated from the Government's own statistics, from the Home Office bulletin, not that there has been an effective increase in police but that there has been a massive decrease, not only in numbers but in effective policing, because of the amount of time that they have to spend in the police station instead of out on the beat.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady has made many criticisms with which, as she knows, I agree, but she made a commitment, and it is important that I ask her a question about it. The commitment was that a Tory Government would restore numbers to their level at the last general election—
  Miss Widdecombe: At least that.
  Mr. Hughes: They would restore numbers to at least that level, from which they have declined. Given that, under pressure, the Labour party has now committed itself to going above that figure in the next Parliament, what is the number of police officers to which the Tory party is now committed to go, and how much money has the Conservative shadow Chancellor allocated for that police number growth?
  Miss Widdecombe: In response to the last question, I remind the hon. Gentleman—he was in the House at the time—of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that if Labour Members seriously expect that we will go into the election promising to cut their police budget, they must be crazy. Indeed, I think that there is some considerable evidence of craziness on the Labour Benches. If the Home Secretary can claim that the amount that he will spend will produce, in the end, jam tomorrow—more than the numbers that we left behind—why is it so impossible for us to be able to fund at least the numbers that he left behind? The difference is that we will do it and he will talk about it.
  Is it any coincidence that the latest crime statistics show assaults on police up by 12 per cent., when the criminal knows that if he hits a policeman or policewoman, and gets a maximum sentence of six months, he will be given the "get out of jail free" card by the Home Secretary in six weeks?
  Just after the last general election, the Home Secretary told the Police Federation:
  The police constable is central to the success of our police service. In difficult, demanding and often dangerous circumstances, the constable is the physical presence of the law on our streets … the visible presence of the police on our streets is a traditional strength of British policing which is more … important in today's environment.
  Since the right hon. Gentleman uttered those words, there has been a decline of more than 1,900 in the number of police constables. It has happened on his watch. The chief constable of Hampshire, whom I mentioned, and whom my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) mentioned, has written:
  The current shortfall in numbers is … placing unacceptable strains on my colleagues and is selling your constituents short.
  For "constituents", read "the British public as a whole".
  Maria Eagle: Will the right hon, Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No.
  Let the Home Secretary think on this:
  The reason why violent crime has risen by 8 per cent, violence against the person has
  risen
  By 7 per cent and robberies have

  585
  risen—incredibly—by
  21 per cent is because there is an acute shortage of frontline officers. The visible presence, and consequential deterrent, of police patrolling our neighbourhoods is falling at the same time as street crime is rising.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Member for Garston invited me to address the crime statistics. I am now addressing them, and if Labour Members do not like what they are hearing, all they need to do is to look at the Home Secretary's own figures to understand what has happened to crime under the present Government. We left him crime rates that, in the last four years of our term of office, had fallen by nearly 18 per cent., and all that he can do is rejoice at a miserable fall of 0.2 per cent. in the latest statistics.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: The fact is, the Home Secretary is failing. It is the view of the chairman of the Police Federation that crime is rising at the same time as police numbers are falling. Last year, he talked about disorder and anarchy on our streets, and the statistics have proved him right. He said:
  We are concerned about the sharp rise in street crime. An increase in a uniformed presence on our streets will help tackle that issue.
  So the Home Secretary's words in 1997 were right—the visible presence of the police on our streets and in our communities is absolutely essential.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: As the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation has observed:
  You've got to have feet on the beat to put hands on collars.
  But there has been a drop of 2,500 in the number of regulars and 1,900 in the number of constables. There are fewer feet on the beat. Robberies are up; violence is up; there is more violent crime, less safety and less confidence on our streets.
  There is a crisis today. There is a crisis of violent crime. There is a crisis of public confidence in the criminal justice system. There is certainly a crisis of confidence in the Home Secretary and in his Prime Minister. They promised to be tough on crime. Instead, all they have done is to be tough on crimefighters—all spin and no delivery.
  In perhaps a few weeks or a few months—or, if they lose heart, rather longer than that—the Prime Minister will go to the country, and this country will give its judgment on the Government's record of shame. I commend the motion to the House.
  5 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the number of police officers in England and Wales fell by 1,476 between 1993 and 1997–98 under budgets set by the previous administration, whilst the strength of the Metropolitan
  586
  Police Service was allowed to fall by 1,773 between 1993 and 1997–98; notes too that morale of the service was badly damaged by the 1993 Sheehy Report, and recruitment made difficult especially in London and the South East by the abolition in 1994 of the housing allowance for officers; welcomes the establishment of the crime fighting fund to bring officer numbers to record levels by 2003–04, the recent rise in police numbers, the 74 per cent. increase in the numbers of recruits entering training in the first nine months of this financial year compared to the same period last year, the 1,000 increase in civilian staff since March 1997, and the very substantial rise in police funding announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review 2000; and congratulates the police service on securing a 7 per cent reduction in recorded crime since March 1997."
  I am delighted that we are debating this issue today. Policing is a crucial issue, in which all hon. Members have a keen interest However, there is another reason why I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miis Widdecombe) for arranging the debate: it gives us an opportunity, yet again, to remind ourselves—but, more importantly, the public—that the Conservative party's promises today on the police are as worthless as all those that it made in 1992 and 1997, which led to the current, very sorry state of a once great party. [Interruption.] As with spending on hospitals, schools and transport, the Conservative party promised one thing on the police, but delivered another. We are providing investment, but the Conservatives could only deliver cuts. That is the inevitable consequence of the fiscal policy to which they are now irrevocably committed.
  When the right hon. Lady was producing her confetti of promises on police spending, I intervened to ask whether she agreed with the shadow Chancellor's commitment to keep public spending at 2.2 per cent a year in the event of a Conservative Government. As the House heard, she refused to answer in the affirmative and evaded the question, as she does so often, saying that it involved a misquotation. Let me remind her of the exact quotation; I want to know whether she agrees with what the shadow Chancellor not only said, but has committed his party to. Last December, he repeatedly said that the Chancellor was planning to increase total Government spending by around 3.4 per cent. a year over the next three years, even though he assumed that the economy would only grow at around 2.25 per cent. I gave the same figure. He also repeatedly said that the next Conservative Government would plot a course towards real Annual increases in spending, which are within the trend rate of growth of the economy-2.25 per cent. So there was no misquotation. I give the right hon. Lady every opportunity to intervene and tell me whether she agrees with that decision, made by the shadow Chancellor on behalf of the rest of the shadow Cabinet.
  Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Straw: I am happy to give way to the monkey rather than to the organ grinder.
  Mr. Leigh: This is all very interesting, but the Home Secretary may have forgotten that he is in charge at the moment, so may I ask him to cast his eyes away from the enjoyable pastures of party political rhetoric for a moment and talk about some real issues? Will he comment on the

  587
  interesting initiative of the chief constable of Humberside, who insists that a larger proportion of his officers, even senior officers, go out on the beat, which is making a real difference to crimefighting statistics in Humberside, given that many chief constables are apparently resisting such moves—for example, the chief constable of Lincolnshire?
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, and I take back my remark. I commend him on that intelligent contribution—if I may say so without condescension. I hope that that does not destroy an otherwise great career. That initiative is exactly what we have been seeking to achieve.
  We have been seeking to achieve better use of the police service's resources. Yes, of course, we want overall numbers of police to increase, but there is not necessarily a connection between overall numbers and crime. If there had been, crime would have decreased, rather than doubled, during the 1980s. Of course, the key issue is how those resources are used, and we have dealt with that. I shall refer to that later. Some chief constables use their resources with better results than others.
  Miss Widdecombe: To answer the question that the Home Secretary asked before he was so incredibly abusive to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I agree, as every sensible person does, that Governments should spend what they actually have. Of course, we agree with that.
  Mr. Straw: What about the shadow Chancellor?
  Miss Widdecombe: Well yes, the shadow Chancellor.
  The Home Secretary spends too much time wasting money on bureaucracy. I quoted a chief constable who said that one force spent £400,000 on Labour party bureaucracy alone. If the right hon. Gentleman did not waste money, he could spend more of it where it should be spent.
  Mr. Straw: I do not call that a wholehearted endorsement of the shadow Chancellor's words. Indeed, the right hon. Lady can scarcely get his name across her lips. Only when I prompted her, did she dare mention his name. What she has just said is very different from the shadow Chancellor's categoric undertaking that spending would be kept to 2.2 per cent. One of many reasons why, whenever the election comes, there will be no vote of confidence in the Conservative party is that its promises on spending simply do not add up with its promises on taxation and overall spending.
  Miss Widdecombe: How does the Home Secretary square his promises with what he has delivered? He promised more police—first, 5,000; then 9,000—but all we have seen since is a fall in the number of police. He promised to be tough on crime, but he is letting people out of prison early. He has done nothing for victims in this country. The general public will not believe his promises. If he doubts that, let him go out and ask them. They are fed up with the Government's failure on the police.
  Mr. Straw: Well—
  Miss Widdecombe: Answer.
  Mr. Straw: I am going to answer. It is always my pleasure to answer the right hon. Lady's questions. I was
  588
  inextricably caught up by promises, all of which could not be delivered together, made by the Labour party in the 1980s, so I understand her predicament. However, in the 1980s, the electorate rightly punished us because we were insinuating one thing, while knowing that we could not deliver it. That is exactly the bind that the right hon. Lady has got into with her shadow Cabinet. She and almost all—I exempt one or two—Conservative Members complain about spending and ask for more, more, more. Yet she now accepts that the shadow Chancellor has committed the Conservative party not to more, more, more, but to less, less, less. That is why she is not believed today, and she will not be believed at the general election.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I want to make progress, and then, of course, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I always do.
  At the previous election, we did not promise to increase the total number of police officers, because we were aware that the money would not be there for reasons that I shall explain later. We were also aware that the Conservative party had promised an extra 1,000 officers in the 1992 election, whereas, as we all know, numbers declined during the following five years.
  The House needs to examine the Conservative party's recent history on policing. That would be illuminating because that history is the best yardstick of its commitment to the police service and is essential in understanding some of the problems that the service faces today. About the time that the right hon. Lady joined the ministerial ranks of the previous Government in 1990, her then colleagues in the Home Office and Treasury were secretly sharpening their knives for use against the police service.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I wish to complete this point before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Numbers rose in the 1980s as, indeed, they did under Labour in the 1970s. However, in an illuminating comment in his autobiography, Kenneth Baker, writing of his time as Home Secretary, let slip what was going on, which was secret at the time. He said:
  I found that while several of my ministerial colleagues and Tory MPs supported the police in public, they were highly critical of them in private. There was impatience, if not anger, that although we had spent 87 per cent. more in real terms … and had increased police numbers, there had still been a substantial rise in crime. "Where is the value for money?" asked my colleagues. I had even heard Margaret Thatcher criticise the management and leadership of the police."
  Once the 1992 election was out of the way, the Conservative Government got to work. They still mouthed the "more bobbies on the beat" line in public, but their intent was very different. They appointed Sir Patrick Sheehy, chairman of British American Tobacco, to mount an inquiry into the police service. His report whipped the police into a sense of collective anger not witnessed since their strikes in 1918 and 1919. The right hon. Lady may today talk about low morale, but she has an extraordinarily short memory.

  589
  The Police Federation recently commented on morale—that topic is its hardy annual—but those remarks are as nothing to the anger that the federation voiced under the Conservatives. The anger was so intense that thousands of police officers attended a protest rally against the Conservative Government at Wembley arena to protest against the Sheehy agenda. Such a protest had not happened before and has not happened since.
  The legacy of the decisions taken at that time remains with us today. Investment was cut, recruitment scaled down and incentives to join the service were removed.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: On the subject of investment in the police force, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the £1 million that he announced yesterday as extra funding for the Cambridgeshire police force? Will he commend that force for achieving a 2.9 per cent. reduction in recorded crime since the election, despite its considerable difficulties in policing the protests against Huntingdon Life Sciences?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. I do, indeed, commend the Cambridgeshire constabulary and its chief constable, Ben Gunn, for their efforts. Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I greatly regret that it has been necessary to allocate £1 million to that force to deal with the outrageous intimidatory and, in some cases, violent attacks that have been made by so-called animal rights protesters against the perfectly lawful and important activities of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Given the pressures on the police in Cambridgeshire, I think that their record is very good, and I look forward to it improving. I hope that the money makes a difference.
  Mr. Howarth: I wanted to raise another matter, but as the Home Secretary has mentioned the appalling sabotage in the campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences, can he say why he and the authorities do not use the conspiracy laws to tackle the people who plan such attacks? I am not talking merely of the people who are engaged in the actual sabotage, but of those who plan it, because such activities are taking place across the country. As I recall, the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 was introduced for protection against watching and besetting. If it is not still on the statute book, the Home Secretary might think about bringing it back.
  Mr. Straw: The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are determined to use all the powers and charges that are available to ensure that such outrageous activities are deterred and effectively addressed. If there is evidence that would add up to a conspiracy charge, such a charge would be laid. I have received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), the right hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in whose constituency Huntingdon Life Sciences lies, and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), in whose constituency many of the people who work at HLS live, about whether we could strengthen the powers that are available. I made it clear yesterday that I was considering that and I intend to consult other parties on whether those could be included in a Bill that is being published tomorrow. I hope to be able to proceed on an agreed basis.
  590
  Some thoroughly misguided people might believe that although the methods of the violent, disruptive and intimidatory protesters are wrong, their ends are acceptable. That is wholly erroneous. None of us likes the idea of testing on animals, and successive Governments have sought to reduce unnecessary testing, for example, on cosmetics. However, we all have to accept that if we wish to see improvements in drug therapy and other advances in medical science, we need to ensure that the drugs or procedures are safe, which means that some have to be tested on animals.
  The lives of millions of people around the world have been lengthened and their health has been significantly improved as a result of drug therapy that depends on animal research. It is for that reason and because of the huge issue of public order that we must support the staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences and other people, including many distinguished academics, who have been the subjects of the most outrageous intimidation in recent years.
  Mr. Heald: I preface my remarks by saying that those on the Opposition Front Bench of course endorse the Home Secretary's approach to Huntingdon Life Sciences. What is going on is completely unacceptable and must be stopped.
  The Home Secretary said that he had not promised in the general election campaign to get more officers back on the beat, but in the manifesto, he said:
  We will … get more officers back on the beat.
  If he is denying that, can he give one example in that general election campaign of when he said what was actually going to happen? When did he say that he was going to slash police numbers, both of regular officers and specials? Did he say that once?
  Mr. Straw: In the manifesto, we criticised the Conservatives for breaking their 1992 general election pledge to provide an extra 1,000 police officers. I made no promise about the direction that officer numbers might take. I said that we would relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat, and that is exactly what we have done. By doing that, by introducing the Narey reforms—albeit endorsed by the previous Administration—by cutting the number of forms that are necessary for prosecutions by a third, by tackling issues such as sickness, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends, and by ensuring that there is a greater degree of efficiency, to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred, and that chief constables and forces have to apply themselves to those matters, we have got more operational officers back on the beat.
  Let me give one example. When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was involved with what is now called the Police Authority for the Metropolis, everyone knew that the administration of that great police force was top heavy. Its headquarters were in Scotland Yard, but its bureaucratic work was replicated in five separate areas. With my full support, one of the many changes that the new Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis introduced was to cut out that layer of bureaucracy. That alone has led to more than 120 officers going back on the beat.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Sir David Phillips and

  591
  the Kent police on achieving a 23 per cent. reduction in recorded crime since the last general election? That is largely due to improved police efficiency. Does he agree that the only real way to make a big difference to public services is to invest in them, unlike the Conservatives who want to cut them?
  Mr. Straw: I most certainly do congratulate Sir David Phillips and his force. Although his resources are tight—they have been since 1993, but they are now improving—he has shown that he has been able broadly to maintain police numbers in Kent. They have decline d by 21 out of a total force of 3,239. I regret that decline, but it is very small and the number will now rise. Sir David has also shown that, because of the methods that he has used, he has been able to target particularly prolific and persistent offenders. As a result, he has the best crime record in the south-east and one of the best crime records in the country.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On the matter of efficiency and resources, has the Home Secretary made progress on the conundrum that has been wrestled with by his Department? How does one reward a police force's efficiency? If a police force does very well, it is recognised as doing very well—Kent may be an example—and crime figures come down, there is no natural correlation at all at the moment between its record and the resources that it receives. Indeed, it is likely to receive fewer resources because there is apparently less crime. That is not an incentive to the police to do well. What is the answer to the question of how police forces are rewarded for good policing?
  Mr. Straw: At any time, the system of grant for distributing money to police forces needs to be improved; it is not a perfect science and it cannot be. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the drive for efficiency is important and that forces that are successful should not be penalised for their success. This is a particularly important issue for the police service, because if a force were absolutely efficient, there would be no crime. The police service is different from any other service, because it is working to a negative—a reduction in the number of offences. Other public services—for example, in education—work to a positive, such as the raising of standards.
  We have to take account of that point and we seek to do so. For example in the case of rural policing, the £30 million that we have allocated to rural forces per year is not remotely based on crime levels; it is based on sparsity and that is as it should be. We also have a whole range of special programmes under the reducing crime initiative to target help to forces that need it and that can show improvements. However, if suggestions are made about how things can be improved, we are of course available to accept them.
  Mr. John Bercow: How is the morale of the police force improved by the early release, over the past two years, of no fewer than 218 people who were imprisoned for assaulting police officers? While the Home Secretary attempts to answer that, will he also explain how respect for the law is increased by the release, under the home detention curfew scheme, of people who have
  592
  escaped lawful custody, been recaptured and imprisoned but who are then given the sweet of being let out of jail early?
  Mr. Straw: The sentences that prisoners receive are a matter for the courts. When they impose a sentence, they take full account of the release arrangements. Since 1997–98, those arrangements include the possibility, where there is a risk assessment, of a home detention curfew. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that, when the home detention curfew scheme was included in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it was endorsed by a unanimous report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1997–98. One of the Committee's members—he has just left the Front Bench—is an Opposition spokesman on home affairs, none other than the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
  I have taken a number of interventions and I want to return to the issue of police service funding. It is important to reflect for a moment on what happened in the mid-1990s. Many of the problems with which I have had to deal—I take responsibility for what has happened since 1997—have their roots in that period. There was sustained under-investment in the police service, and spending rose by only 0.5 per cent. in real terms in the last three years of the Conservative Administration and their Budgets. The housing allowance was removed from all new recruits. Of course, the service could recruit at almost any level when there was a recession but, as particularly London and the south-east came out of recession and employment prospects improved, the removal of the allowance made it particularly difficult to recruit officers in London and the south-east. Central controls over police numbers were also removed.
  The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 explicitly removed the power of Ministers to set the numbers of officers in post. On the Bill's Second Reading, the former boss of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, could barely wait to be rid of that responsibility. Standing at this Dispatch Box, he said:
  In future, the number of constables in a force will be a matter for local decision, not for the Home Secretary.
  To reinforce the point, and in a phrase typifying his overall approach to his office, he added:
  It is not a matter for me.—[Official Report, 26 April 1994: Vol. 242, c. 113.]
  Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Conservatives were up to in implementing their agenda set by Sheehy, we can examine the 1994 Conservative research guide. It criticised the old system under which establishments were set by the Home Secretary and praised the new system in which numbers would be a matter for chief constables. It said that the old system provided
  perverse incentives to recruit police officers instead of civilians.
  There we have it. The removal of those
  perverse incentives to recruit police officers
  had the effect that Conservative Ministers privately intended. Police numbers went down. They started falling in 1993 and, under the Conservative's published spending plans, they were bound to go on falling.
  We have been in government since May 1997 and we accept our responsibility, but the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald cannot evade her responsibility.
  Mr. Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I may give way shortly.
  The right hon. Lady cannot evade responsibility for her own part in what happened. As a Minister in the Home Office, she came to the House in January 1997 to recommend a financial settlement to the police that could provide only a reduction in the number of officers. Yet she boasted of the then Prime Minister's commitment
  to provide funding for an additional 5,000 police officers over three years.—[Official Report, 29 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 457.]
  That funding came into effect a few weeks before the previous general election and was for the 1997–98 financial year. As a result, under that budget and the previous four, numbers fell by 1,500 across the country and by 1,800 in the Metropolitan police.
  Faced with the hard truth that police numbers were declining and would have carried on declining—as I shall show in a second—what does the right hon. Lady say? She comes up with an explanation that is so crass that it either raises questions about her intellect that I do not accept or suggests—this was well illustrated earlier—that she has decided to resort to waffle and bluff as a smokescreen to cover the manacles that the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has attached to her on police spending.
  The right hon. Lady has said:
  If the Home Office could afford almost 3,000 more police officers when you came to power—and did so on a smaller budget—where has all the money gone?
  That question was returned to her by an incredulous Jim Naughtie, who asked her where she thought all the money had gone, and she said that we were wasting it on bureaucracy, we were wasting it on press officers and we were wasting it on advertising.
  We are not wasting the money on bureaucracy because overall staffing at the Home Office has gone down. Our advertising spending is on police recruitment, which I happen to think is quite important. The right hon. Lady chose to refer to press officers, but the number of press officers in the Home Office—I have already admitted to this in parliamentary answers; it is not a secret—has risen. It has risen from 19 to 27; the number has risen by eight. However, she seems to think that, for the audience in the House and across the country, going on about an increase of eight in the number of press officers is somehow an answer to where the money will come from to pay millions and billions of pounds for promises that she could never keep.
  Miss Widdecombe: Why does the Home Secretary not actually say what I said? I did not confine my remarks just to the Home Office. I talked about this Government and the increase of £2 billion on Whitehall bureaucracy and today I have quoted a figure of getting on for £500,000 for bureaucracy alone in just one force. If he is seriously saying that there are no savings to be found from bureaucracy, his intellect is in question.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady chose to talk about advertising, which is being spent on police recruitment. She also talked about bureaucracy, but we have yet to see what she is talking about. It is easy to talk about £2 billion for bureaucrats but, in the Home Office, she is talking
  594
  about people in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, people running the crime reduction programme and the civilians whose numbers have increased by 1,000 since the general election to release more police officers for front-line duties. That is what she is talking about. She chose to talk about press officers in the same breath as those other matters.
  There is an answer to the right hon. Lady's question. There is a reason why police numbers have fallen even though budgets have risen under this Government. It is partly because chief officers have used the powers that they were given by the previous Administration to switch resources to civilian staff and new equipment, and partly because of the rising costs of police pay, especially pensions. Pension costs have risen from 9.1 per cent. of police spending in 1995–96 to 12 per cent. in 1999–2000.
  The projections given in the last public spending plans published by the Conservative Government in March 1997 give the lie to the right hon. Lady's promises and her claim in January 1997 that there would be an extra 5,000 officers. I remember that I was sitting on the Opposition Benches when she said that. Those plans spoke grandly of an increase of 5,000 police officers.
  Let me tell the right hon. Lady, because I am sure that she has forgotten, what was to happen under the Conservatives' plans to the money to pay for those officers. In 1996–97, there was to be £3,462 million of central Government support for the police service. By 1999–2000, when the number of police officers was to have risen by 4,000. from 127,901 to 131,901, spending on the police service would not have risen to pay for those extra officers, but would have fallen to £3,453 million. Those were the Conservatives' spending plans. They knew as they were making their claims that they were planning not to increase spending on police numbers, but to cut it. That was why they were not believed at the previous general election and it is why they will never be believed again.
  By contrast with the Conservatives' record, we are turning round the decline in police numbers which has occurred since 1993 The right hon. Lady has asked me what happened to my promise at the Labour party conference in October 1999 to increase the number of recruits first by 5,000 over the number that was planned and then, following the allocation of additional money, by 9,000. The answer, as I made clear at the time, is that the money became available last March. The figures that we published earlier this week show that the money kicked in straight away, and the number of recruits rose by almost 500 between March, when the money was first paid, and September. The numbers are rising again, and recruiting centres have 75 per cent. more recruits than ever before.
  We have also dealt with the problem of recruitment in London by increasing by £3,300 the pay of London officers who were recruited after 1994. Yesterday, I announced that there would be free rail travel for all Metropolitan police officers within a 70-mile radius of London. That has been hugely welcomed by the Metropolitan police service.
  I see my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) looking at me quizzically, so I shall turn now to home counties forces. In the police negotiating board, we have made an offer to increase by £2,000 the

  595
  pay of home counties officers within a 30-mile radius of London and by £1,000 the pay of those within a 40-mile radius. We believe that to be a generous offer, although we are of course open to other suggestions. We want the Police Federation and others to agree to that offer. All I can say is that if I were an officer in the Thames Valley or Hampshire, I would rather have £1,000 or £2,000 than deadlock in the police negotiating board.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I intend to make a speech later, if there is time, but I have a question on that point. Does the Home Secretary's concession relate also to the housing problems facing police officers in the areas surrounding the Metropolitan police?
  Mr. Straw: The areas with the most serious recruitment problems are in central London, and we are dealing with those effectively. We are trying to deal with other areas with less serious problems. Some time ago I made it clear to chief constables and to hon. Members of all parties that we were open to suggestions about what needed to be done, and we have come up with proposals that we think will help.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I need to make progress.
  We have encouraged the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to modernise recruitment processes. Another problem for the Met was that the force was taking nine months to process application forms; the Commissioner has brought that down to three months. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition dismissing the huge increase in recruitment. The previous Government reduced total numbers in the Metropolitan police by almost 2,000, and at long last, after 10 years, the numbers are rising. However, the Leader of the Opposition has insinuated that because the Met has changed some of the restrictions on recruitment, the only people being recruited are those who would previously have failed the tests.
  I can tell Conservative Members that the basic regulations on police recruitment and Home Office guidance have not changed. Only two things have changed. First, the Met has brought itself into line with other forces on the question of criminal convictions, so a minor criminal conviction is no longer an absolute bar to recruitment, nor should it be. Of coarse a conviction that goes to character should be a bar, and it remains so.
  The second change demonstrates that the Leader of the Opposition is, as ever, ill-briefed. The Commissioner has abolished a series of archaic, simply inexplicable restrictions on recruitment. All tattoos, anywhere on the body, even those relating to a lady to whom one was still married, were a complete bar to recruitment. There was an absolute restriction on recruiting people with varicose veins, receding gums or too many crowns in their teeth.
  Irritable bowel syndrome, even if cured, was a total bar to recruitment if disclosed beforehand, even though it was not a condition for compulsory resignation for serving officers. I looked down that list of restrictions; they were bonkers and needed to be removed. I commend the Commissioner for doing so. It is fortunate that there are no such restrictions on entry to the House, or we would have fewer than 60 Members, not more than 600.
  596
  I am the first to acknowledge that, other things being equal, police effectiveness is improved by more police officers, backed by good equipment. However, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made clear, effectiveness is about much more than head counting. That is why our investment in the police is directed at technology. We are providing £143 million to expand the DNA database. A further £500 million is being invested to establish a new national digital radio system. We are putting additional money into the police force at every level. There will be a 7 per cent. increase in real terms in funding for the police service next year, and a 3.5 per cent. increase over the three years of the settlement, compared with a measly 0.5 per cent. in real terms in the last few years of the previous Administration.
  We are dealing with some of the inherent inefficiencies in the service. It was completely unacceptable that 77 per cent. of all officers in Merseyside retired early through alleged sickness. We have reduced that number throughout the country. The Opposition motion mentions wastage. Overall, that has come down. We must consider the number of resignations along with the number of those retiring. As long as early retirement on medical grounds was available as a route out of the service, people would of course seek to take that route rather than resigning because they got more money. Now that the route has been closed off, there has been a increase in the number of resignations. It is tiny compared with the total, but the total of retirements and resignations, far from going up, has gone down from 5.1 per cent. to 4.7 per cent. in the past four years. That is the lowest figure for years. That is a good indicator of morale. It is not true that there is flight from the service. Apart from London, where there have been recruitment problems, that is palpably true. Sickness rates have also been tackled.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: Yes. This will be the last intervention.
  Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend is right to identify London as being different from elsewhere. However, there are some places close to London that share London's problems, one of which is Slough. I am meeting my local police federation to ask the National Police Federation to stop standing in the way of extra money for Slough. Will my right hon. Friend perhaps include Slough's part of the Thames valley in some of the initiatives that he is taking to improve recruitment in the Metropolitan area?
  Mr. Straw: I commend my hon. Friend for the assiduous way in which she has spoken up for Slough. I recognise, as I have done in respect of other matters, that in practical terms Slough often has to face the same cost levels as greater London, but in administrative terms, it is outside London. That is why we have made the proposals that I have described. If my hon. Friend has other proposals to make to us, we shall consider them sympathetically. Across the Thames valley, since the general election, police numbers have increased by 53. We have provided the money to Charles Pollard and his force considerably to increase numbers again.
  We are making other changes. Crime doubled during the period of office of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, but the number of people

  597
  prosecuted fell by a third. That was because of the catastrophic way in which the previous Administration reorganised the Crown Prosecution Service. When she was a Minister in the Home Office, there was a failure to do anything about the CPS's funding.
  We are increasing the CPS's resources by almost a quarter in real terms next year so that at long last it has the capacity to prosecute people who have been charged by the police. We have made many other changes.
  The right hon. Lady talks selectively about the previous Administration's record. She says that crime came down from 1993. If she wants to be judged, she must be judged on the complete record of the Conservative Administration. Everybody knows that it is indelibly fixed in the mind of every elector that crime doubled under the Conservatives. The marginal decline that took place in the last two or three years of their Administration did nothing to take away the pain of seeing crime doubling during the previous 15 years.
  I am not in the least complacent about crime. Crime, not least because of the record of the previous Administration, is still far too high. However, crime is down under the Labour Administration. We have the best record of any incoming Administration for 50 years. Our record compares with the 20 per cent. increase that occurred under Margaret Thatcher, and the 40 per cent. increase—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) must desist from sedentary interjections.
  Mr. Straw: I am not surprised—
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: Yes.
  Miss Widdecombe: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the record of the immediately previous Administration was a fall in crime of nearly 18 per cent? His record has squandered that achievement. First, the falls slowed down, and now they have declined to 0.2 per cent. Will he admit that the record of the immediate previous Administration was twice as good as his?
  Mr. Straw: No. We are not judged by what happens in a month or during years which happen to be picked. I am astonished that the right hon. Lady has not worked out the fact that at the general election people were judging the stewardship of the Conservative Government. They were not selecting the odd arbitrary year. They were considering the 18 years of Conservative Government and recognising the abject failure of that Administration. They failed to make the police more efficient and they failed to tackle crime and disorder. There was the abject failure to do anything—
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be interested to know that unfortunately the right hon. Member for Maidstone and
  598
  The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) did not tell me when she visited my constituency recently. Otherwise, I would have taken her to see the exciting results from the community safety partnership. It was actively supported by the Labour council, but it is under a great deal of threat from the current Tory council. When my right hon. Friend visits Plymouth, will he come with me to visit people in the partnership, who among other things have achieved a 50 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime? In the six months from April to October they have achieved a 10 per cent. reduction in violent crime.
  Mr. Straw: Yes. I commend the Devon and Cornwall constabulary on its achievements. One reason why the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald would not have spoken to my hon. Friend is that since the general election, not only in the past six months, police numbers in Devon and Cornwall have risen, not fallen.
  At the last election, people judged the previous Administration on its record. Over 18 years, crime had doubled while the number of people convicted fell by a third. That Government were planning cuts in real spending on the police service. Had the Conservatives returned to office and their plans been implemented, police numbers would not have risen by 5,000 as they were dishonestly promising. Far from falling by 2,500, they would have fallen by 4,000 more.
  Our record is the best of any incoming Administration for 50 years. Crime has fallen by 7 per cent. since the general election. According to the British crime survey, it has fallen by 10 per cent. We are investing in the police service. By contrast, all that the Conservatives would do, as we heard at the beginning of the right hon. Lady's speech, would be to make promises to spend. In reality, they would cut. It is the Government and the Government's programme that are on course to make the country safer, and the Conservative party would significantly damage that prospect. As before, it would ensure that crime increased.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Earlier this afternoon, with the Minister of State, Home Office and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), I attended the funeral of Damilola Taylor. As the House would expect, it was an incredibly moving event. Damilola Taylor was killed in the borough which in part I represent, although just outside my constituency. In his personal tribute, the pastor of the church which the Taylors had attended throughout his time here—that incredibly impressive family of faith and dignity—asked this question: what changes do we have to make to the morals and values of our society, so that little boys like Damilola do not get taken to their death at the age of 10, on their way home from school or from the library?
  I start with that because, as the Home Secretary suggested earlier, a debate about the police is only one part of a jigsaw of responses that society tries to put together to create a better society. Self-evidently, if we had a crime-free society, we would not need a significant police force. The debate today is taking place because, sadly, we have far too much crime. Violent crime is on the increase, and many of our fellow citizens—people whom we represent throughout England and Wales for the purpose of this debarte—feel that matters are getting out of control.

  599
  I agree with the Home Secretary that the purpose of public policy on law and order should be to reduce crime significantly, so that police numbers can come down. As a society, we should not want ever-bigger police forces all round the country. We should be moving in the other direction. The basis of our society should be mutual respect, so that people do not attack other citizens in the street and take out their own prejudices on others.
  I shall add one more comment about my experience this afternoon. As I walked away from the church in Shooters hill, a woman came up to me with a woman friend of hers. She was the mother of a 19-year-old who had been killed some months ago by a 16-year-old. She was a white woman, with her white friend. Having gone through a similar bereavement just months ago, she had come to show solidarity with a black family mourning the death of their young son. It is the example of those two women, those two families, and those two expressions of courage, that we should encourage.
  Our debate, especially in the run-up to a general election, should rightfully challenge the Government's record on the police. Leading for an Opposition party, I shall also test and question the Government and seek to expose the areas in which they have failed. However, I hope that we will be united in our objective to do everything possible to encourage the good examples, the law abiding, and the morals and values of society that the pastor mentioned, so that we do not witness the social failure so often exemplified in crime
  That wider debate is not principally about police; it is about family life, community life, a decent education service, and a responsible media that do not portray images of violence all the time—violence on television, violence on film, violence in computer games and violence on pitches in games that many young people watch. It is also about a criminal justice system and a prison system that work to ensure that when people go inside they are punished, but come out less likely to offend.
  Another part of the jigsaw is the Prison Service, which is still often ineffective at rehabilitating people. Half of all those who go to prison reoffend within two years of coming out. It is no good thinking that the burden of dealing with crime is entirely that of the police.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore welcome the Government's joint probation and prison accreditation panel, which is designed to strengthen and accredit programmes to deal with offending behaviour?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, I do. It is important that we improve the quality and effectiveness of the Prison Service, the probation and social services and all the other agencies. The youth offender regime that the Government have introduced is a good one. There are many good initiatives designed to make sure that the pattern of criminality among youngsters is arrested.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, to whose speech I am listening with interest and respect. In the light of what he said about the need to reform prisoners so that when they go out into community they lead constructive lives, will he join me in regretting the fact that there has been a serious decline in the level of
  600
  purposeful activity in prisons over the past couple of years? In particular, will he join the Conservative Opposition in calling for prisoners to undertake a full, normal working day during their incarceration?
  Mr. Hughes: I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who looks after prison matters in our party, a concern about the reduction in profitable activity. I can also tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that, like his party, we have a policy commitment that there should be a full working week regime in prison—working or education or training, except for those who are unable on health grounds to fulfil that.
  I was extremely frustrated to discover, when I visited Leeds prison last year, that the opportunity for work existed, but the prison regime insisted that prisoners spend two hours in cells in the middle of the day instead of being in the gym or the workshop or somewhere where they could train. We must get away from that old-fashioned regime. The new governor, to her credit, wanted to do that in Leeds, as do many other senior managers in the Prison Service.
  The last obvious point that falls to be made at the beginning of a general debate about police numbers, which has also been a debate about crime figures, must, I hope, be an honest admission by all of us that there is no direct link between police numbers and crime figures. Of course, the more police that there are, providing that they do their job properly, the more effective they are likely to be in deterring and detecting crime. No one has ever argued to me that fewer police make that more likely. Reductions in police numbers reduce the chance of deterring and detecting crime, but there is no simple link between the one and the other.
  I concede that, there having been huge increases in crime during the first three Tory Administrations, there was then a reduction during the last Tory Administration in all but one year, and, since then, crime figures have gone up and down. Violent crime went up all the time under the Tories and has gone up and down under the Labour Government, and it is sadly going up again now. Therefore, I hope that we all realise that it is difficult to establish the link between policing and crime, and that it is simplistic to think that crime figures are significantly and hugely affected by policing when so many other factors are at play in society.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I declare an interest, in that my wife is a prospective member of the probation board. Does my hon. Friend accept that resources put into the probation service and reoffending are much more closely identified?
  Mr. Hughes: That certainly appears to be the case. Because many more people are treated outside prison, even though they may have offended, logically, resources—as my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and others know from their constituencies—are better directed to all the people outside. If people outside were treated more effectively, we would not be worried about so many people being

  601
  inside. Liberal Democrats take the view that we are sending far too many people to prison, which is expensive and often cost-inefficient in terms of reducing crime.
  Dr. Stoate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I should be grateful if he allowed me to continue as this is an Opposition day and Conservative Members must be allowed the majority of Opposition time.
  I share the respect for the police and I understand their sense of pressure. They have many new pressures now which they never had before, such as the internationalisation of crime, making their work much more complex than before. Many more people move around and communities are less settled. There is much more pressure on society, so people suffer more mental illness and strain and criminal tendencies are as a result more likely. Technology is much more complicated, and the police are expected to deal with that when used by criminals and to use it themselves. There are more diverse communities with many more languages, cultures and traditions. There is much more legislation, and that places a huge burden on the police, resulting in much more paperwork than they have ever had before, which has a huge implication for the police. There are fewer civilians to pick up the pieces and do the work which need not be done by people in uniform at all.
  Special constables tell me that there are fewer of them principally because fewer people volunteer, owing to their other commitments at work and home. Numbers have dropped significantly because people are unwilling and unable to make the commitment, often because their work pressure is too great. The reality is that the police are under the same pressures as all the other areas of public life, and our job is to respond appropriately.
  Sadly, the Government have not helped. They have done many good things, and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that I will acknowledge publicly when the Government get something right, but be strong, with my colleagues, when they get it wrong. During the previous Parliament, Labour Members were critical of the Tory party's record on these matters and made all sorts of commitments. Their two great commitments were to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and to cut by half the period taken to deal with regular young offenders from arrest to sentence. If the election is this year, it does not look as though the second commitment will be met. I do not say that, if the Parliament lasted for five years, it would not be met, but it does not look as though it will be. In addition, the perception of the public and the police is that the Government have also failed to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime and that after four years it is a bit late to start to remedy that.
  The recently published Audit Commission report confirmed that the Government's further manifesto pledge, to put more bobbies on the beat, has also not been realised. The number of police officers per person has gone down, not up. Those are not my figures or Liberal Democrat figures, but figures from the Audit Commission, which is respected as independent.
  For many, there is a sad conclusion to draw. This past week, the BBC news website carried the headline, "Public losing confidence in police". Even worse is the fact that
  602
  many police officers are losing confidence in the police. Our duty is to deal with both matters: the public need to have confidence in the police again but, above all, the police need to have confidence in the police again.
  May I now make n my substantive, principal and, I hope, portmanteau criticism of the Home Office? I do not understand why the Home Office and the Government made one fundamental mistake above all else. When all the evidence points towards a need to do something, when the public say that it weds to be done, when members of the Labour party and other parties say that it needs to be done, why does it take so long to do it? When the Government came to power, there was a backlog of asylum seekers to be dealt with. It took a long time for the Home Office to get on top of that. The passport problem arose, and that was not dealt with until there was a crisis.
  In relation to the police, there was a saga in which the Home Secretary, adopting the Tory position, first said that the number of police officers was nothing to do with the Home Secretary, it was a matter entirely for chief constables; but then suddenly realised that that was not a satisfactory answer to give the public, so he made the famous Bournemouth speech and said that the Government would allocate the extra money to put in 5,000 extra officers. There was a slight problem, however, as those officers were not extras, so that had to be revised— [interruption] Well, they were not extra in the sense of a net total of 5.000 more. There were 5,000 more officers, and then one had to deduct all those who were leaving via the back door.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): They were extra.
  Mr. Hughes: If the Minister thinks that they were extra, he is the only person who still believes that what was said to be extra was extra. That is not what was discovered by everybody else on the day in question.
  The Government then said that they accepted that they had to have more police. Eventually, last year, in the comprehensive spending review, having ring-fenced the so-called 5,000 extra police officers—after originally saying that that was nothing to do with the Home Secretary—and after the establishment of the crimefighting fund, there was a generous allocation. More police officers were identified in the settlement, which will produce more like 9,000 more police officers—9,000 in total or 3,000 a year. Hopefully, in the next Parliament, although not in this one by any means, there will be a rise in police numbers. The Government have, at last, agreed to get there, but why, as in so many other areas of policy, has it taken them so long to do what they said and implied they were going to do? Everyone else, including the public, wanted them to do that, and everyone else is disappointed that they did not do it earlier.
  One of the problems now is that the police are expected to do so much that they are saying, "Please do not give us any more". I gather that, the week after next, we will have the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. We have had such Bills in every Session of this Parliament and pretty well every Session of the previous Parliament all producing more obligations for the police. The Bill will include fixed penalty notice systems for dealing with people on the streets and

  603
  curfews. All that I hear from the police is that they do not want any more obligations and they will not have the officers available to do additional jobs such as policing curfews, trying to work out who is—or is not—a 16-year-old, and stopping everyone under that age, whether law-abiding or not, walking around the streets. As a last minute appeal, I urge the Government to drop the nonsensical bits of their proposed legislation and allow the police to get on with the things that they want to do, deal with the troublemakers and not worry about the rest.
  There is a big morale problem, which we have a duty to address. It is partly addressed by the Government's decision to improve pay and travel arrangements for the Metropolitan police, which I welcome. I am glad that the Government have also realised that police in other parts of the country need additional resources. However, it is nonsense to have a system in which those Essex, Surrey or Thames Valley police who live in an area of their county closest to London will get paid more, while police officers who live in other parts of the county, more than 50 miles from London, will not. W ill the Government be pragmatic and put on the table a proposal that there ought to be additional payment for the police in places such as Hampshire—which is not a home county—where the cost of living is more? We have to give the police the ability to buy homes, settle and stay; they should not feel that they cannot afford to live in any particular area in question.
  That brings me to one final morale question. The motion condemns the early release scheme for those who have assaulted police officers. Ministers are right to point out that the scheme had the all-party support of a Select Committee. Indeed, my party gave its support, but we now believe that there is a significant problem in respect of early release for people who are guilty of assaulting public servants. We have concluded outside the House—and we seek today to reflect that conclusion here—that we now share the Conservative view on that aspect of the early release scheme. I call on Ministers to review the scheme in relation to assaults on public servants, as it does nothing to help their morale and does a significant amount to undermine it.
  My unanswered questions to the Government about their policy for improving the police are not new. First, what is happening about police pensions? The Home Secretary said that they take an increasing amount of the budget, which is correct. Indeed, that explains why we do not have as much money for the police. A year ago, on 7 February, I was told in a written reply from Ministers that we would be given an indication of Government policy in spring 2000, but we have arrived at spring 2001 and silence has reigned. It would help every police authority in the land to know the answer on pensions and to be assured that they will not continue to be such a big burden and to account for such a percentage of their costs.
  My second question, which I put to the Home Secretary, concerns the resolution of the great Home Office conundrum in respect of ensuring that police forces which are efficient, reduce crime and do all the right things do not end up being penalised in their budgets. Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats have proposed the immediate production of a package to retain for another five years officers who are reaching retirement age, to deal with the immediate shortage. I did not hear the Minister of State on the radio the other morning, but I
  604
  gather that he was generous and said that the Government were considering the proposal. I hope that there will be a speedy response. We also proposed to bring back good officers who have just retired and are not in full-time work. People retire from the police force at 48, 49 or 50 and are young enough to go on doing a good job. They have experience and capability and are, by definition, of far more value individually than somebody can be at 18 or 19. It would be a very good thing to bring back such officers.
  Fourthly, why did the generous comprehensive spending review, which gave a 6.4 per cent. Home Office budget increase, award the police an increase of only 3.8 per cent.? That is another question to which we have not yet received an answer. Why did the police get a much smaller growth figure than the Home Office in general?
  Finally, will progress now be made on sorting out the statistics? A great flurry of activity occurred about a year ago, when it was said that a committee would be established to try to ensure that statistics were correlated. The Liberal Democrats were asked to nominate a member of the committee and we did so. A year passed—at least, it is getting on for a year—and nothing happened.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: A year has not passed; it was July.
  Mr. Hughes: I apologise for saying it was longer if the proposal was made in July. However, it was certainly made some months ago. After it was made, a flurry of urgent activity occurred and then there was silence.
  Yesterday, an example arose of the need for proper statistics. It appears that the Metropolitan police changed its ethnic recruitment statistics on its own to make it appear that it was doing better. That is nonsense. We must have common statistics so that we can see what is happening throughout the country.
  The proposals in the Liberal Democrat amendment to the motion are those that we believe would most helpfully deal with current problems. I shall not repeat the suggestions that I have dealt with, but I shall add the rest.
  Mr. Heald: One is always pleased to see a sinner that repenteth, but I seek some clarification. The Conservatives twice tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Bill that would have ensured that people who assault the police—just the category of people to which the hon. Gentleman referred—are not released early. Will he acknowledge that he voted against those amendments? He has completely changed his mind.
  Mr. Hughes: I concede that point; we have changed our minds, having taken the view that morale among police officers and public servants is now so poor that it means that the scheme needs amendment. I concede openly that we have changed our position. We have done so because we hear from people in public service that they regard the scheme as unhelpful in giving them the respect that they need as public servants. That is why I join the Conservative party in asking Ministers to change their policy on the matter. I hope that they will do so.
  I want to make a few final proposals in addition to those that I hope I have already made absolutely and expressly clear. First, there should be a regular place where these debates can take place other than between

  605
  politicians. The Police Federation asked for a royal commission. That has the weakness of being a one-off exercise. Matters move too quickly for a royal commission to be able to look into the future. I hope that the Government will respond positively to our proposal for a permanent standing conference involving all ranks and representatives of the police, politicians and the public to advise on police numbers and police efficiency. It could discuss what is needed to give us a better police force.
  Such a conference could also consider whether we need so many different police forces. The regional forces should be reviewed, although I do not have a final view on that, as well as the different types of forces. Is it logical to have the British Transport police looking after railway station car parks if they are rarely present? That responsibility could be taken on by the local police, who police the area around a station car park and go past it all the time.
  Secondly, there needs to be a huge, immediate increase in police officers. For five years, the Liberal Democrats have been saying that we need a minimum of 130,000 officers in England and Wales. That is still our view. That is 6,000 more than there were last April. We have asked the Government to do everything they can to bring about such an increase as quickly as possible—it is above what both the other main parties propose. If that needs more money, now is the time to spend it on public services, because, for a combination of reasons, the coffers are full of money that the Chancellor has available to spend.
  Thirdly, will the Government consider attracting more police recruits by sponsoring them through college and university? Fourthly, can there be a category of retained officers, such as the fire service has, who do paid, part-time work? Fifthly, will the Government set up, in conjunction with local government, community safety forces to police estates, the streets and parks—the low-level crime policing? That would hugely reassure people.
  Lastly, is it possible to ensure that every community, rural and urban, has named police assigned to it, so that all people know who their police officers are and how to get hold of them, and that they will respond speedily on the non-999 number?
  The police deserve our support. The public ask us to support the police. The Government have had some success, but they have not delivered until far too late. I hope that they have got the message at last. I am, however, sad that they have failed so lamentably for so long to deliver so much of what they promised before they became the Government at the last election.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate has been going for two hours, and there have been three speeches by Members on the Front Benches. Back Benchers have been squeezed out of the debate. Can you give any ruling on this matter?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that there is no ruling that I can give on this matter. The Chair cannot control the shape of a Opposition day—whether there is one subject or two—and has no control over speeches by Members on the Front Benches. The hon. Member
  606
  highlights one of the disadvantages for Back Benchers of split Opposition days when Front Benchers take a great many interventions and make long speeches.
  6.13 pm
  Ms Hazel Blears: I shall try to be brief, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) is anxious to make a contribution.
  I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about the tenor of the debate. An undue emphasis has been placed on figures, statistics and numbers of police, when we should be discussing winning the fight against crime by preventing and reducing crime, which is what people in our communities look to us to do.
  The debate, however, has sharpened the choices that the British people have. They can take the Tory line as shown in the Opposition motion, which is full of cynicism, hopelessness, doom and gloom and demoralisation—as if nothing can be done. The debate in their terms is about statistics, not about people and humanity. On the other hand, they can take the Labour approach, which is about more investment, trying to tackle and reduce crime by working with local communities, and trying to give people confidence, a sense of hope and a sense that they really can make a difference. That is nod easy, as it takes time to reduce crime, but I know which approach I prefer. It is the positive one that involves practical action, taking steps, and working with communities, rather than simply running things down and making it seem as though we live in a land of hopelessness in which nothing can be done.
  We have seen that Opposition Members do not like to be reminded of their record, because they think that that is boring and dull. However, it is important to place in front of the British people the fact that crime doubled under the Tories. The number of crimes involved is shocking. In 1979, 25 million crimes were committed—still far too high a figure—but that figure rose to 5.5 million under the Tories. That is an astounding statistic, and most of the people who bore the brunt of that crime lived in p corer communities. Ten per cent. of the poorest people in Britain were the victims of 42 per cent. of crime. They were people who lived in communities such as mine, where crime was allowed to reach almost epidemic proportions, destroying families and communities, and allowed to run riot.
  Dr. Stoate: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Blears: No. I have very little time, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
  I am heartened that the general reduction in crime figures, particularly for domestic burglary and vehicle crime, is mirrored in my constituency. Domestic burglaries are down by 20 per cent. in Seedley and Langworthy—one of the hardest inner city areas in Salford—and vehicle crime is down by nearly 20 per cent. That tells me that, for once, the poorest communities are catching up with the rest. Our crime rates are coining down at the same rate as in other areas, and poorer people are no longer being singled out as repeat victims of the crime epidemic that we experienced in this country.

  607
  Of course there is a problem with violent crime. All hon. Members feel strongly about that, which is why the measures in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill to tackle alcohol-related crime will be so crucial. The challenge will be to try to prevent that kind of crime from happening in the first place. We have to make it clear that certain kinds of behaviour are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and that there will be swift and serious punishment for people who indulge in anti-social behaviour and disorder in our communities. At the same time, we must try to determine why they engage in such behaviour, and how we can divert them from so doing and give them more constructive things to do.
  Last year, there were 50,000 incidents in which young men and women were horribly disfigured by being cut on the face by broken glasses and bottles, usually in alcohol-related crimes. A fantastic campaign has been mounted involving the Manchester Evening News; the Greater Manchester police have been involved in confiscating alcohol on the streets; and a successful byelaw has been passed. As a result, the figures for injuries in such crimes have slumped dramatically. The Home Secretary has given his personal commitment to the scheme, and hopes to roll it out nation wide. That is the kind of practical action that we can take to ensure that crime is reduced and prevented. We must be imaginative and creative in tackling crime, but the Tory motion contains a simplistic analysis. Talking up crisis and fear among members of the public is not the way to make people feel confident that they can make a difference.
  Of course we need police officers to enforce the new powers that we are going to give them, and the numbers are beginning to rise after a long period of decline. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that she wanted to civilianise and make police forces more effective. For goodness' sake, we have been doing that for years and years. In Greater Manchester, overall police staff numbers have fallen by 42 in the past 12 years. However, the number of operational police officers has risen by 1,075 because we have adopted civilianisation and found efficiency savings and better ways of using resources. There are now more than 1,000 extra police on the front line helping our communities to succeed.
  The crimefighting fund will give the Greater Manchester police a further 588 police officers over the next three years, and in December it had the highest recruitment figures ever. Those are grounds for cautious optimism. This is not a brave new world; we are not going to solve all the problems overnight. However, the fact that recruitment figures are going up means that young people are regarding the police as a career in which they can make a contribution and become involved with their communities.
  Police numbers are not the only issue. How the police are used is also important. The Tory analysis is simplistic, crude and unimaginative. I do not know why I am surprised at that; I am certainly disappointed by their approach. Greater Manchester police are to receive an extra £14 million, which includes £5 million for youth justice measures; £2 million for closed-circuit television; £2 for burglary reduction by helping elderly people to make their homes safer; £500,000 for tackling gun and gang crime; and £500,000 for tackling domestic violence.
  608
  The homelink scheme is to be introduced, which will use information technology to give people who have been the victims of crime or who are particularly vulnerable a portable alarm. In that way, they will be able to contact the police and obtain an immediate response in an effort to reduce crime. We have the schools liaison programme, aimed at diverting people aged between 10 and 18 from crime. The programme, which involves 12,000 young people in our area, is a real success story. We also have the drug arrest referral initiative.
  I think all Members will acknowledge that a huge amount of crime is connected with drugs. We have established a partnership involving the police, drug action teams, health authorities and social services departments. There is a drugs referral worker in every custody suite in greater Manchester, and in the last six months those referral workers have screened 3,500 people, offering them advice and referral for treatment. One thousand people have been referred for treatment. Some 80 per cent. of those referred were offending to fund their drug use; 70 per cent. were on heroin, and 94 per cent. were unemployed. Those are sad statistics, which is why practical schemes such as this are so vital.
  We are taking steps to prevent and reduce crime. We have invested an extra £3.2 million in Operation Hawk. The object is to bear down on the serious problem of street robbery, targeting those who are likely to be repeat offenders, looking for local intelligence, working with local people and using information technology to make efforts to reduce the number of robberies much more effective. We have set ourselves a tough target—to reduce the number by 20 per cent. over the next five years—but I am confident that we will achieve it, because there is real commitment.
  It is hard to tackle crime, but I believe that if we are serious about it the last thing we will do is what the Tories have tried to do today. Talking of crisis and raising the spectre of violent attack lurking around every street corner demoralises our communities and demoralises the police.
  The choice is clear. Do people want a Labour programme involving practical action, building self-confidence and extra investment in the police force—there will be 9,000 additional officers over the next three years—or do they want to accept the Tory option? That means talk of crisis and demoralisation, hopelessness and cynicism. It also means a cut of £24 million in every constituency in Britain. How many police officers does that involve? How many drug referral officers does it involve? How many police officers working with young people does it involve?
  That is the Tory option: cuts, demoralisation and cynicism. I prefer the Labour option of hope and confidence for the future.
  6.22 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall follow the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) in one respect. I too shall be brief, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) that there is very little time for Back-Bench speeches. That is a pity. If I may say so, as a recidivist from the Front Bench, I do not think that parliamentary debates are just debates between the two Front Benches.
  If I were to engage in two reflections, they would be on what the Home Secretary said. He made much of public spending and police numbers, as the hon. Member for

  609
  Salford said. During the 11 years I was a member of Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet, we were attacked by Labour Members—including, to a large degree, the present Home Secretary—for restraining public spending. I note, however, that police strengths increased dramatically during that period.
  The Government continually quote figures relating to the period between 1993 and 1997, but for some reason they do not mention the figures relating to the full 18-year period of Conservative Governments. Over that period, the strength of the police service in England and Wales increased by more than 15,000, and spending increased in real terms by some 72 per cent. By any standards, that compares well with what has been achieved by the present Government, who will go to the election reporting a decline in police numbers since they came to power.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I have observed the change in the language of Home Office Ministers in the months since I was shadow Home Secretary. We were told then that police numbers did not matter; that there had never been an age in which there was a policeman on every street corner—not that anyone had ever claimed that there had been; and, when the rest had failed, that police strength had nothing to do with Ministers, and was down to individual chief constables.
  Dr. Stoate: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.
  As I was saying, we were told that police strength was entirely down to individual chief constables, even when—as in the case of the Metropolitan police—the Home Secretary was the police authority. We have seen—to put it at its mildest—a dramatic U-turn in Home Office policy. Ministers now accept after all that police strength is vital and does have something to do with them; for why otherwise would they be promising the money and resources that they have promised? There can be no other conclusion. However, the basic point that I should like to make is more fundamental than a comparison of records.
  This week, an opinion survey in Birmingham was published, conducted by MORI for the current, Labour-controlled council. It showed that only 24 per cent. of the population thought of Birmingham as a safe city. Those who were surveyed liked Birmingham and were proud of it, but they were concerned about their personal safety. I suspect that if a similar survey were conducted in the other major cities of this country—such as Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle—there would be similar results. The public are genuinely concerned. Consequently, it was quite right of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to raise the issue as a matter of public and political debate.
  Of the whole range of problems of crime, I intend to concentrate, but only briefly, on the major problems facing our cities. I am intrigued to see that the new Mayor of London is in New York, studying how its police deal with crime. He is not the first to have paid that visit—the Home Secretary has gone, as have I and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary—but he is right to go. The policies that have been so successfully applied in
  610
  New York have real relevance in London, especially given that the populations with which we are dealing are very similar.
  There is one cautionary note to sound, however, as the description "zero tolerance policy" gives the impression of a police force that is prepared to intervene on the slightest pretext. It gives the impression of an over-officious force. That is why William Bratton, the former police head in New York and author of the scheme, is wary of the tag. What the police force in New York really do is apply modern management methods to the detection of crime
  The New York force is proactive, keeps up pressure on criminals, gathers intelligence on crime patterns, targets suspected criminals, deploys extra officers to areas of particular difficulty, and perhaps above all, it holds to account the different police commanders across the whole city. It also has early-morning meetings, tracks crime in each precinct and holds to account each precinct commander.
  So the real difference in the New York approach to policing is that the police there regard crime as something that can be directly fought and defeated. It is a rejection of the passive policy whereby officers simply wait to respond to telephone calls from the public. Just as surely, the approach is a rejection of the defensive theory that nothing can be done until we understand the real causes of crime—an approach that would condemn tens of thousands of people to living in misery until sensible policies were introduced.
  There is no question but that the New York approach to policing has been spectacularly successful. Anyone who visited New York seven or eight years ago would see the difference on returning. Crime has been reduced by about 50 per cent. and the annual murder rate is down to a quarter of what it once was. However, the most important measure is not the official statistics, but the response of the ordinary citizen. That response is the crucial measure, just as the response of the ordinary citizen in Birmingham is the crucial measure.
  When I was in New York, an opinion poll in The New York Times showed that 60 per cent. of the public believed that life in the city had improved because of police action. So why have we not been able to emulate the success of New York and of other United States cities? The reason is clear. When Mr. Bratton introduced his new method, one important step was taken: New York recruited 7,000 new police officers. The result is that, today, the force has a strength of almost 40,000. A similar story can be found across the United States.
  Compare that with London's Metropolitan police force—which serves about the same population size as New York—and one finds a force that has to make do with a strength of fewer than 25,000. Frankly, however, there is no way in which the New York policies can be applied here. Even in what we would regard as a generously provided for police force such as New York's, policemen still note and sometimes complain of the pressure that they are under. However, that pressure is as nothing compared with the pressure that policemen are under in this country s big city forces.
  Finally, I do not say that police strength is the only factor in crime, but it is one of the most important. There is a real danger that this country is under-policed, and that there are not enough police to fulfil the duties that we

  611
  give them—to which we continue to add. An example of that is the non-enforcement of the traffic laws. That may seem minor, but it leads to countless deaths and injuries.
  Over the past three or four years, the Government have relied on the excellence of policemen and policewomen and allowed them to take the strain. In that way, they have hoped that the gaps in the service could be disguised. However, there comes a time when that becomes impossible.
  My criticism is that the Government have taken almost four years to realise what their priorities should be. It is all very well to promise that things will be better in the future, but we have heard that once or twice before. The truth is that, since they came to office, the Government have presided over a decline in police strength, at a time when cities overseas have increased it. That was a crass error and there is no reason for the British public to forgive them for it.
  6.31 pm
  Gillian Merron: The debate is not only about talking down the Government, but about talking down the effectiveness of the police. I want there to be more police officers, and I know that Ministers and all hon. Members do. The difference between the parties is that the Government are doing something about police numbers, whereas the Conservative party's plans to cut public spending have committed it to reducing police numbers.
  Crime in this country is falling. That change has happened not by accident but as a result of deliberate policy. The Government have brought together the police, new legislation, smarter techniques, local partnerships and resources. That combination has been encouraged and developed by the Government, and it has taken effect in a changing culture where there is a greater regard and respect for building up both the sense and the reality of community; and the Government's approach is producing results.
  This week's British crime survey showed that recorded crime in my county, Lincolnshire, his fallen by one fifth since the general election. It is not surprising that the chief constable of the Lincolnshire force, Mr. Richard Childs, should acknowledge that Lincolnshire is one of the safest places in the country to live.
  I want to give the House some facts about police numbers. In Lincolnshire, we are looking forward to reaching, by April, an officer-strength target of 1,240 officers. Lincolnshire police have said that that will be the highest number of police officers ever achieved in the county.
  All hon. Members know that the question is not one of police numbers alone, but of how they are deployed. In Lincolnshire, the police have launched a number of tremendous initiatives. They include mobile rural task forces, the Staying Alive road safety campaign, a reorganisation to release more police officers to the front line, and a positive and creative recruitment campaign. All those initiatives are making a big difference to policing and crime fighting, in Lincoln and across the county.
  An interesting article appeared in last Friday's Lincolnshire Echo, entitled "Will More Bobbies Prevent Crime?" It concluded, first, that we should all keep a sense of proportion—a thought that I offer especially to
  612
  Opposition Members. Secondly, it concluded that new technology—such as closed-circuit television and improved security—were great contributors to the reduction in crime.
  The article's third main conclusion was that a police officer on every corner would not stop most crimes. I believe that the partnership approach that includes police officers is what brings results.
  I shall list, briefly, a few examples of the support that the Government have provided in my constituency—in addition to extra police officers—to help in the fight against crime. That support is also aimed at reducing the fear of crime, which is what people really want. We have just seen a recent additional development in the Monks road and Stamp End area of Lincoln, where CCTV has completed its first month in a residential area. It has helped the police to make 14 arrests, which I consider a significant contribution, through a programme developed by a partnership of the Government, Lincoln city council—which is to be congratulated on embracing its role in fighting crime—local people and the police. They are all working together to get real results in Lincoln.
  Of 750 bids submitted to the Home Office for extra Government money for the CCTV programme, the Monks road and Stamp End bid was fast-tracked into the top 30. I thank Ministers for seeing the benefits for my constituency. Sandra Donnor, secretary of the Monks road initiative, has been impressed by the scheme so far. She was quoted in the local paper as saying that crime—particularly drug-related crime—in the Monks Road area was quite high, and that a lot of elderly people were frightened to go out after dark. Since CCTV has been introduced, people have said that they feel safer. Sandra Donnor said that she feels better, knowing that cameras are monitoring the area. I think that she speaks for many people in Lincoln and across the country.
  The second piece of Government support for Lincoln is the anti-burglary initiative on the St. Giles estate. I was pleased to welcome the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), there not too long ago, to see the results for himself. The St. Giles anti-burglary initiative money has been spent on alarms, locks, security shutters and improved fencing, and there has been a 30 per cent. reduction in burglaries in the area.
  My hon. Friend and I were invited into the home of Tracey Kelly and George Thompson, on Robert Tressell walk in the St. Giles area. We heard and saw for ourselves just how pleased they were with the security and how the area was being transformed into a community where safety was higher up the agenda.
  I have a challenge for the Conservative party. What will it do, should it win the election? Its proposed £16 billion worth of cuts in public services represents cuts of some £240,000 in each constituency. The Conservatives have not committed themselves to matching our spending on the police. To meet their cuts programme in Lincoln, the Tories would be looking at cutting some 60 police officers in the city.
  What else would be at risk? Projects such as the St. Giles anti-burglary initiative; Birchwood's sure start, which gives children under four the best start in life; and CCTV, welcomed by city centre businesses and by the people in Shuttleworth house in Monks road, would all be threatened. Not one person in Lincoln would be unaffected, because crime, and fear of crime, affects us all.

  613
  There is much more to do, but I hope that the House will give credit where it is due and not be misled by the Tories' constant talking down of the Government and our police officers.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I do not have time to indulge in the slap and tickle of debate that the Front Benches are engaged in on national statistics. I want to look at some of the problems in Surrey, and I have two minutes in which to do so. That does not do justice to the problems in the county of Surrey.
  One of the problems of a successful police force, as was pointed out earlier, is that for a reward its grant is cut. In real terms, Surrey has, in effect, had a 2.8 per cent. cut in central Government grants. That is simply unacceptable. It means that over the next two years we will be down about 165 officers, unless drastic changes are made, and 250 officers over the next three years. That means a real change in policing, and the Surrey police force is one of the most efficient in the country. I have absolute confidence in Denis O'Connor, the chief constable. He says:
  Over the last few years we have experienced an increasingly poor budget settlement. Looking forward we cannot see any hope of a significant improvement so we are forced to examine how we work to see what changes are necessary to ensure we are as efficient as possible and the most effective service is provided.
  That is a further challenge added to the fact that, at present, about 60 per cent. of the recruits commute for long distances and sleep on floors during the week in order to maintain the Surrey force. We do not do badly with recruitment in Surrey, but there is a problem of bleeding to other forces—especially to the Met, because of the differential value of the housing allowance. It is difficult to maintain a force in Surrey when the cost of living in my county is as high as in most parts of London.
  I have been brief. I hope that the Minister of State, Home Office is listening. I could offer him many more statistics. Please will he change the policy for counties such as Surrey and begin to be a bit more generous?
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had a good debate, although I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) who had to restrict his remarks. I feel for hon. Members who were unable to have the full debate that they wanted.
  I had intended to spend a little time on the fact that this is the first time that I have debated against the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), since he was tipped for the top. I had planned to read a little extract from the article in The Guardian, but I shall not have time to do so—what a pity.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his restraint.
  Mr. Heald: I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman the bit I liked best.
  We heard some excellent contributions to the debate. I shall highlight first the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who
  614
  really gave the lie to the line peddled by the Home Secretary on the history of the matter. My right hon. Friend made the point that, during our period in office, the Conservatives put up police numbers by more than 15,000. He also pointed out that that dramatic increase had been achieved against the sorry background of the previous time that Labour had been in power.
  I do not want to go back to the 1970s, but many of us can remember the slice in police numbers, the damage to pay and conditions and the rise in crime. That was the Labour legacy in the 1970s. In the 1980s—
  Mr. Straw: Why did police numbers rise by almost 10,000 during the period of the previous Labour Government?
  Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary makes his point, but I wanted to make the point that—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] It is true that one can take particular dates and arrive at particular figures, but the point I wanted to make is that it took a long time to turn around the effect of those years of Labour Government—the rise in crime. The Conservatives turned that around by increasing police numbers. Every year in the 1990s, police numbers went up—
  Dr. Stoate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heald: I do not have time.
  The numbers of police constables and special constables rose and by the time of the 1997 general election—the Home secretary should listen to this—crime was falling and the number of police constables and of police officers in general was rising. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had had the best start as Home Secretary of anyone in many years—how right he is. That start was given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
  Mr. David Taylor: What a pathetic Opposition.
  Mr. Heald: It is not pathetic opposition to say that we had a record to be proud of; we gave the Labour Government a good start and, by goodness, they have squandered it.
  It is easy to get into statistics and talk about a fall in police numbers, but what that means on the ground is an overstretch, so when a force needs to police an incident in the town, there are no officers in the villages. If we want special initiatives to target burglars or car crime—as we do and as the Government have said we will—that is at the expense of visible policing in town centres. There is less time for police officers to talk to the public. There are fewer police stations because they cannot be manned. The police are unable to do the job that they want to do. The public do not receive the service that they deserve and that the police want to give them.
  It is not merely a question of statistics. It is right of the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) to say that we should have a positive attitude; no one comes out with more policies than the Conservative party. It was the Conservative party that said that we should get retired police officers back to work. We suggested part-time police officers and retained officers. It was the

  615
  Conservative party that suggested cops in shops and a new cadet service. We have ideas, but the Government must be blamed for what they have done—and what they have done is disastrous in terms of policing.
  Mr. Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heald: No, I will not. I do not have time.
  The specials have a fine history of voluntary service. Special officers have made it possible to have an additional officer in the market square on a Friday night, or to double-man a rural police car so that there can be an extra night patrol. The specials mean that when there is a police incident in one place, there is cover for the gaps. When we talk about a collapse in the morale of the police service as a whole, it is often said that it is about pay and conditions, but the fact that the number of volunteer special officers has fallen by a third under the present Government gives the lie to that. It is about morale.
  When the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others say that we must increase the number of police officers, of course they are right, but it is a positive policy of the Conservative party to restore police numbers to the level that they were at when we left office. It is that sort of positive approach that we take, and take rightly.
  The Home Secretary cannot get way with saying that police morale has not been fractured by his policies. The numbers are down, which means that it is much more difficult for officers to do their job. The early release scheme has meant that 200 police officers who have been assaulted have seen the people who assaulted them released early. We have won one recruit. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who opposed our policy that the early n lease scheme should not apply to people who have assaulted police officers, has decided that it is right that it should not apply in those circumstances—and he voted consistently against that proposal.
  Come on, it is time for the Minister to change, too, so we want to hear from him tonight that he will protect police officers, and we would like him to apologise for what has happened—apologise to the 25 police who have been injured as a result of the actions of those who have been released.
  We want a system where wastage does not run at record levels and does not increase out of control. Voluntary resignations are up 60 per cent. Just this year, the Met has revised its figures on wastage and increased them by 25 per cent. for this year. We have seen the original estimates for forces such as the Greater Manchester police, which the hon. Member for Salford mentioned. What has happened to wastage there? At the half-year point, it was running at a far higher level than was predicted earlier in the year.
  We want to see recruitment levels rising, so that we can get the police that we want. There is an improvement at the moment, but we wonder whether it is a one-off caused by the change in policy by police Forces to take some recruits that they previously refused. As the Home Secretary says, it is right that people who have tattoos should be able to join the Metropolitan police; but to review the backlog of officer recruits who have been refused is a one-off exercise. Over the coming months and
  616
  years, recruitment will reach a cliff-edge. It will fall, while wastage continues to rise. The Home Secretary has seen a one-off boost, about which he can boast in the general election campaign, but the underlying position is not nearly as good as he likes to claim.
  Violent crime is rising, perhaps because police officers have been focusing not on patrolling the streets but on other things, because there are not enough of them to pursue all the Government initiatives and to fight robbery, street crime and violence. There is a rise in violent crime, yet the Government are trumpeting their success. Police wastage numbers are up, yet the Government are parading their success. Public confidence is down, as the Audit Commission report shows, yet the Government are trumpeting their success.
  One has to wonder what sort of success it is to achieve such results, because the Government had a golden legacy—[Laughter.] They had a golden legacy from the previous Conservative Government, from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. Crime was falling fast—it was down by 18 per cent.—and police numbers were rising. Now we have the exact opposite. If that is success, Labour has invented a new language, and it is no wonder that the Prime Minister will not hold a debate with the Leader of the Opposition, given the arguments available to him on this issue.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): In this brief summary, I intend to address police reform, falling crime and rising police numbers and morale, but first I shall deal with the point about Surrey, made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). As his colleague, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will confirm, we have agreed arrangements precisely to discuss some of the Surrey issues. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary addressed pay and recruitment in his speech, but I acknowledge that issues remain to be discussed. I, too, pay tribute to the chief constable, who is raising those issues, and we have a process for discussing them.
  On police reform and the famous secret mentioned by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), let me make the position clear for the record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) rightly said, it is a matter of how the resources are used and how the process is taken forward. At the beginning of September, we held a seminar with a wide range of organisations, including the Police Federation, at Lancaster house. Mr. Fred Broughton, the president, and Mr. Jeff Moseley, the secretary, were present. We discussed how to modernise the police, especially how to provide better leadership at basic command unit level; the structure of the forces, including best value and regional co-operation; how to develop what the Metropolitan police commissioner calls "the extended police family"; and better relations between the police and other organisations.
  We discussed how to develop information and communication technology and science to equip the police; how to use intelligence-led policing and CCTV; and visibility and reassurance—precisely the issues that right hon. and hon. Members have raised. We also discussed the proposal from the Police Superintendents Association that we should consider single-officer

  617
  patrolling rather than double-officer patrolling, and flexibility in the police regulations, together with the partnership development and similar issues. That important dialogue has continued since then. Another meeting will take place in a couple of weeks under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  It is true that the Police Federation decided, by a small minority vote, that it did not wish to participate in the process—its choice, not mine. I have used all possible means to urge the federation to be involved. Frankly, I think that its members will regret the fact that it is not involved in those discussions, because full engagement in the process represents the best way to involve people in modernising the force.
  Lord Justice Auld is considering important reforms to the criminal justice system. That major and important agenda has been identified for all the reasons that my hon. Friends have mentioned. It is not secretive in any way; we want to engage the whole police service. Most importantly, it is led by the police and by initiatives from Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, the Metropolitan police commissioner and the Police Superintendents Association. That shows that we want to have a serious debate about how to equip the country with the police service that it needs.
  The second issue raised was the alleged rise in crime. In fact, crime is falling. The British crime survey, published last year, was the second to show a fall in crime—the first covered 1995–97, under the previous Government; the second covered 1997–99. Each of the previous six surveys, from 1982 to 1995, had shown increases in crime, but I am happy to pay tribute to the previous Administration for the decrease in crime in 1995–97. I wish they would do the same and give us credit for keeping down crime in 1997–99.
  The recorded crime figures tell an important and significant tale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) said, there was a 4.2 per cent. reduction in crime in Lincolnshire. In the Leader of the Opposition's constituency, there was a 6 per cent. reduction in crime. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows, there was a 4.4 per cent. reduction in crime in Blackburn. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, there was a 4.6 per cent. reduction in crime.
  Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way because of the time at my disposal.
  There was a 16.5 per cent. reduction in burglary in the force represented by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The same applies to vehicle crime and so on. Although there has been a significant reduction in crime right across the range, it needs to be better. The point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about violent crime is right. I have acknowledged in many different forums that that is a serious problem, which we are addressing, but the general picture is good and positive.
  Hon. Members were right to raise the important issue of the fear of crime. The survey of English housing was published in December last year. It was an enormous
  618
  study and showed—I again pay tribute to the previous Administration—that in 1994–95. 1997–98 and 19992000, the number of people who considered crime a serious problem in their area was reduced year on year. For example, 35 per cent. of people on council estates thought that crime was a serious problem in 1994–95, but that fell to 31 per cent. in 1997–98 and to 24 per cent. in 1999– 2000. In affluent family areas, the figure fell from 16 per cent. to 12 per cent. to 6 per cent.
  The story is one of improvement. It is absolutely not the case that crime is rising; it is falling. The debate would be much improved if, rather than telling untruths, hon. Members faced the facts and acknowledged the truth of what is happening in their constituencies.
  Police numbers are also important. We have published statistics, and they are clear. After seven years of decline in police numbers since 1993—for reasons with which we are familiar—those hr ye been turned around. The national figure shows an increase of 444 over the six months to September last year which is reflected in particular forces. The number of police in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is up by 35 and in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition it is up by 10. Two Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople are from constituencies that are covered by the Thames Valley police force, in which the number of police has increased by eight. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the number is up by 36. Numbers are increasing right across the country.
  I can go further. The House may be interested to know that the number of recruits in the North Yorkshire force is four times greater this year than it was last year. It is going up and we are going forward.
  I can go further still. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is always keen to draw a comparison between March 1997 and the current state of affairs. Let me give her the facts. According to the most recent figures for police force strength, which go up to 30 September last year, police numbers in 13 forces—nearly a third of all forces in the country—are higher than they were when we came into government. Those forces include Devon and Cornwall, which has been mentioned, Dorset, Durham, Dyfed-Powys, Gloucestershire, Gwent, Leicestershire, Northumbria, North Wales, South Wales, South Yorkshire and Thames Valley. I must tell the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that there were 7,350 officers in the West Midlands constabulary last September compared with 7,113 when we came into power. There has been a major increase across the country.
  We have said many times that, by 31 March 2002, there will be more police officers than there were in 1997. Between now and the n, more and more forces will exceed the number of officer who were employed when we came into office. We have introduced more changes and delivered better policing.
  The story is the same for police morale. Assaults on police have decreased. We have given our figures to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
  Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I will not.
  The Government's policy is clear. First, we shall continue to increase the number of police officers in every force in the country. Secondly, we shall continue to

  619

  reform and modernise the police service so that we deploy and use resources most effectively. Thirdly, we shall continue to focus on particular crimes, so that we find solutions to them, solve them and drive them out, because that is what we have to do, crime by crime by crime. Fourthly, we shall continue to build partnerships with other services across the country Finally—it is the principal goal of our policy—we shall continue to drive down crime. That is the determination of the Government; we are doing it and shall continue to do it. The country will face a choice when we go to the polls. I know that it will trust this Government to deliver what the previous Government never could.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 265.

  Division No. 68]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Allan, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Amess, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gibb, Nick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gill, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ballard, Jackie

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bercow, John

  Gray, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Grieve, Dominic

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Boswell, Tim

  Hammond, Philip

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hancock, Mike

  Brady, Graham

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayes, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Burns, Simon

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Butterfill, John

  Horam, John

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clappison, James

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Key, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Collins, Tim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cotter, Brian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cran, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Leigh, Edward

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Loughton, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Luff, Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Faber, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fallon, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Malins, Humfrey

  Right, Howard

  Maples, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Mates, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  620

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Moss, Malcolm

  Syms, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Page, Richard

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Paice, James

  Townend, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Tredinnick, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Prior, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Rendel, David

  Walter, Robert

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Ruffley, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wilkinson, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wilshire, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. John Randall and

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clelland, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Colman, Tony

  Austin, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Banks, Tony

  Corston, Jean

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cox, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Crausby, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Darvill, Keith

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Best, Harold

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Betts, Clive

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, John

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dowd, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burden, Richard

  Edwards, Huw

  Burgon, Colin

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caplin, Ivor

  Etherington, Bill

  Casale, Roger

  Reid, Rt Hon Frank

  Caton, Martin

  Rsher, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Rint, Caroline

  Chaytor, David

  Rynn, Paul

  Clapham, Michael

  Follett, Barbara

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  621

  Foulkes, George

  Mallaber, Judy

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gapes, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maxton, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Meale, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Merron, Gillian

  Goggins, Paul

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin

  Grogan, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Motley, Elliot

  Hanson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Healey, John

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mudie, George

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hood, Jimmy

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Pearson, Ian

  Hope, Phil

  Pike, Peter L

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pond, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Joyce, Eric

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roy, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sawford, Phil

  Lammy, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Sheerman, Barry

  Laxton, Bob

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Lepper, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McCabe, Steve

  MeCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Snape, Peter

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spellar, John

  McDonnell, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McFall, John

  Stevenson, George

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stringer, Graham

  622

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wood, Mike

  Touhig, Don

  Woolas, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tynan, Bill

  Vaz, Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 129.

  Division No. 69]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cohen, Harry

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainger, Nick

  Colman, Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allan, Richard

  Corston, Jean

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cotter, Brian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cox, Tom

  Austin, John

  Crausby, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Darvill, Keith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Marqaret

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bennett, Andrew F

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

  Benton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Best, Harold

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Edwards, Huw

  Browne, Desmond

  Efford, Clive

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burden, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Burgon, Colin

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Burstow, Paul

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flint, Caroline

  Casale, Roger

  Flynn, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Galloway, George

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gapes, Mike

  623

  Gardiner, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maxton John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Meale, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Merron, Gillian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin

  Grogan, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hancock, Mike

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

  Hanson, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Mountford, Kali

  Healey, John

  Mudie, George

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien Mike (N Warks)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L

  Hope, Phil

  Plaskitt, James

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Pond, Chris

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pound, Stephen

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prentice. Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jenkins, Brian

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Joyce, Eric

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rogers, Allan

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Roy, Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ruane, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kidney, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Sawford, Phil

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lammy, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Laxton. Bob

  Singh, Marsha

  Lepper, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Smith, Ft Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Smith, Ft Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Snape, Peter

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spellar, John

  McDonnell, John

  Stevenson, George

  McFall, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stringer, Graham

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stunell, Andrew

  McWilliam, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  624

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watts, David

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  White, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wood, Mike

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Woolas, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tyler, Paul

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tynan, Bill

  Wyatt, Derek

  Vaz, Keith

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bercow, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Key, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brady, Graham

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brazier, Julian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Butterfill, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Luff, Peter

  Clappison, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maples, John

  Cran, James

  Mates, Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Day, Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Norman, Archie

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Faber, David

  Page, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paice, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Flight, Howard

  Prior, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gale, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  Gibb, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gill, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gray, James

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Steen, Anthony

  Hammond, Philip

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  625

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Walter, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. John Randall and

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  'That this House notes that the number of police officers in England and Wales fell by 1,476 between 1993 and 1997–98 under budgets set by the previous administration, whilst the strength of the Metropolitan Police Service was allowed to fall by 1,773 between 1993 and 1997–98; notes too that morale of the service was badly damaged by the 1993 Sheehy Report, and recruitment made difficult especially in London and the South East by the abolition in 1994 of the housing allowance for officers; welcomes the establishment of the crime fighting fund to bring officer numbers to record levels by 2003–04, the recent rise in police numbers, the 74 per cent. increase in the numbers of recruits entering training in the first nine months of this financial year compared to the same period last year, the 1,000 increase in civilian staff since March 1997, and the very substantial rise in police funding announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review 2000; and congratulates the police service on securing a 7 per cent. reduction in recorded crime since March 1997.'.

  Police Numbers

    SPORT
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM(99)643, a Commission Communication entitled 'Community Support Plan to Combat Doping in Sport', European Union Document No. COM(99)644, the Helsinki Report on Sport and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 23rd November 2000, submitted by the Department of Culture. Media and Sport relating to the Declaration on Sport; considers that the special nature and role of sport should be recognised in applying Community rules to sporting activity; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Europe is effectively represented in the deliberations of the World Anti-Doping Agency. —[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 24 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

    DRAFT DEREGULATION (SUNDAY LICENSING) ORDER 2000
    Resolved,
    That the draft Deregulation (Sunday Licensing) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved. —[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

    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. Keith Bradley.]
    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.'—[Keith Bradley.]
    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. Keith Bradley.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    PETITION

      Cleansing Services Group
      7.24 pm
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: In the early hours of 30 October, there was an explosion and subsequent fires at the chemical reprocessing plant owned and run by Cleansing Services Group Ltd. at Sandhurst in Gloucestershire. Because the site flooded soon after, as it is prone to do, the hazardous chemicals could not be removed from the site for some time. Many people have since complained of feeling ill, and two were detained in hospital for a while afterwards.
      The site has emitted obnoxious odours for years, and I and many others, including local councillors Mark Williams and Paul Ockelton, have repeatedly warned about the unsafe running of that plant. We were largely ignored, yet, sadly, we were right. The chemical works are built on a flood plain. The company has shown a disregard for its neighbours and the environment, and the agencies have been unable to control it effectively.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is not allowed to make a speech when presenting a petition. He has solely the right to present the petition.
      Mr. Robertson: The petition was compiled by the chairman of Sandhurst parish council, Mr. Andrew Warren, and contains about 2,100 signatures.
      The petitioners therefore request
      that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to close the site in order to eliminate any hazardous operation with the potential to cause damage to the surrounding environment and population.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Young Offenders (London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  7.26 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on a subject in which I have expressed considerable interest over the years. Indeed, essentially, I am coming back to a subject which I raised in an Adjournment debate in May 1999. I have followed it up through interest in and contact with people who work at Feltham prison, as well as prison visitors and others.
  However, I want to put the matter in a wider context. I am sometimes criticised by my dimmer critics in Twickenham for taking an interest in an institution in an adjacent constituency which is not part of Twickenham. However, all of us—and certainly those of us who are concerned with London—have an interest in the workings of the young offenders institution. A though we have just had a debate on police numbers, there is a fear of crime. Crime is not simply a matter of police numbers and detection by the police, but involves the way in which the relatively small numbers of persistent young offenders are dealt with. It concerns whether they are caught, how they are punished and whether they are subsequently rehabilitated or reoffend. That relates very much to the way in which the young offending regime operates.
  I am aware that, since I introduced my last Adjournment debate, there have been big changes, some of which have made headlines, including the riots at Feltham and the tragic death of Zahid Mubarak. However, there have been positive development in the youth justice system, such as the creation of teams to deal with young offenders, the appointment of the Youth Justice Board and a whole new approach to under-18 offending. I want to try to incorporate some of that in my speech.
  My main message for the Minister, to which I hope he will respond, is that the message that I get back from the prison is that there is a tale of two parts. In certain respects, there have been big steps forward and big improvements, but, in others, there has been stagnation or regression, which relates largely to age categories. Everybody concerned acknowledges hat there has been a big step forward concerning the care of under-18s or former juveniles. A separate wing has been created, more recreation has been provided, and here is a gym and proper education provided. When I last spoke on the matter, few of the 16-year-olds were getting any education, which is now being remedied. There is a much more positive approach to the rehabilitation of that age group.
  I am sure that the Minister would accept, however, that for people in that age group, everything is far from perfect. Even now, there are far too many of them in Feltham prison. I believe that the prison's capacity for the under-18s is about 180, but there are far more than 200 there. As a result, a separate unit for them has had to be created among that for the older prisoners, where they have none of the better treatment that they get in the other unit.
  As I am sure the Minister knows, there are also problems, such as the disciplinary regime. Despite the fact that many under-18s are enjoying better recreational
  628
  facilities, there is a marked recourse to smashing up cells. There is obviously still a lot of anger and violence in that age cohort. None the less, the feedback that we are all getting shows that there have been a big step forward and great improvements.
  The older young offenders—the 18 to 21-yearolds—constitute the other side of the coin. They are affected partly by the improvements that apply to the lower age range. The younger offenders get gym, and there is therefore less gym space and time available for the older offenders. Many continue to be locked up for 22, and sometimes 23 hours a day, partly because of staffing problems, to which I shall revert in a moment. Conditions are difficult, and there are little problems, which I hope that the Minister can perhaps solve through intervention.
  In an overcrowded, pressurised environment, an hour out of a cell provides little recreation. The young people naturally want to ring home, and there are simply not enough telephones to do that. Those are simple problems, but the environment is difficult for 18 to 21-year-olds. That is the big story that has emerged in the past couple of years.
  Among the other issues that I raised 18 months ago, one of the main problems that Sir David Ramsbotham, the chief inspector, highlighted was hygiene and cleanliness. I believe that substantial improvements have been made, and that much has been done to alleviate simple problems such as changing clothes, and ensuring that people have regular changes of mattress if needed. However, many of the problems to which I referred continue to exist. That is worrying. I shall itemise some of them.
  First, extreme violence and tension often exist in the prison environment. I was struck by a passage in the visitors' annual report. It reads flatly until one assimilates what it is trying to convey. It states:
  Over the year Feltham has had a high level of assaults and self-harm. During July 2000, an average month, statistics show that there were 49 serious assaults and 10 serious attempted hangings.
  That reflects a typical month. The problems have existed in the prison for many years, and they culminated in the murder of Zahid Mubarak last year. Clearly, they are part of the culture that has not yet been eradicated.
  Secondly, all prison reports have referred to the problem of severe overcrowding, and the sharing of cells that were designed for only one prisoner. I have had trouble with the arithmetic; perhaps the Minister will be able to bring us up to date. I understand that there are currently just over 600 prisoners because one of the wings is out of action. However, I believe that the plan is to increase the numbers again to approximately 875. That would be 100 prisoners in excess of the official capacity. In human terms, that means that approximately 60 cells, which were designed for one inmate, will be shared, in some cases as dormitories. Over the past couple of years, efforts have been made to introduce basic privacy in those shared units, but considerable tension exists in them, and the position is unsatisfactory.
  Some of the e-mail correspondence that I have received from prison staff suggests that the third problem has become worse. It relates to staffing. It is not simply a matter of numbers or money. There is a high rate of

  629
  long-term absenteeism for sickness. The figures that the Minister recently provided in a parliamentary answer suggest that the rate of absence is about 18 per cent.; prison staff tell me that it is somewhat higher. Staff are under extreme pressure and many respond by going on long-term sick leave. The remainder are therefore asked to pick up the slack and are under even more pressure. That leads to higher sickness rates. There is a vicious spiral of extreme tension, demoralisation and low staff morale. Such a serious issue cannot be accommodated by hiring more people and providing more money. It clearly relates to the management of the institution.
  Another problem has arisen in the past year. I was startled when I was told that there have been five governors in the past year. Two were temporary because of the gap between permanent appointments. However, with such a rapid turnover of senior management staff, it is difficult to get the continuity and commitment necessary to make such an institution work.
  There are two recurring themes. One is the treatment of the health needs of prisoners. I know that an attempt has been made to strengthen the health unit in the hospital, but it is most alarming that it takes the best part of three months to place the large number of prisoners who are psychologically disturbed in a national health service psychiatric institution, because of the shortages of staff and the difficulties of vetting. In that three-month period, many of them are vulnerable to self-harm.
  The other factor, which I do not want to make too much of, is that in the past there has been a serious imbalance between the proportion of ethnic minorities in the prison population, which is roughly 50 per cent., and the proportion in the staff, which is about 10 per cent. All the staff I have ever met have had a positive approach and have treated prisoners in a non-racialist way. I do not think that people associated with the prison have ever alleged that that is a major issue. However, such an imbalance between the composition of the staff and the inmates is a problem, but perhaps the question of why there is such an imbalance in the prison population should be posed to magistrates. Progress in building up the role of ethnic minorities in the staff seems to be slow, and that clearly requires further attention in the long term.
  Can progress in dealing with the under-18s be carried forward to the older young offenders? There is now a jarring contrast between the two, and it is not merely academic, because 17-year-olds become 18 and they progress from a much-improved regime to one that is much worse. The disparity between the two regimes must be dealt with, and I would be interested to hear how the Minister proposes to do that.
  The staffing problem merges into the general problem of professional staff and labour shortages in west London, which manifests itself in various ways and applies to police officers, nurses and teachers. However, there is a specific problem of high rates of long-term sickness and absenteeism, possibly connected with management leadership. How is that problem to be addressed?
  Will the Minister take a personal interest in dealing with the difficulties that some visitors have pointed out to me? Simple, practical measures could often, with a little
  630
  money and resources, make a considerable difference to the quality of the environment in which these prisoners live—for example, having access to more telephones and having electricity in the cells so that they can have televisions. I am not arguing for a Butlin's holiday camp environment, but it is generally accepted that such facilities are important to prevent self-harm and suicide, especially in the early stages of incarceration.
  My final point is more fundamental. How do the Government see the role of institutions such as Feltham in the long term? what is envisaged in 10 to 20 years' time? It is the largest institution of its kind in Europe. Our experience of these young offenders institutions is that they are not succeeding in their fundamental objective of rehabilitating prisoners. There is an enormously high rate of reoffending, which is partly due to the nature of the institution. What is even more important is that 70 per cent. of the prisoners are non-violent offenders. Is there not a better way of dealing with this problem than incarceration in an institution such as Feltham, with its problems of overcrowding, and with its pressures and violence?
  I know that the Government have carried out pilot schemes on alternatives. One thing that slightly worries me, which the Minister can perhaps comment on, is that magistrates are using their increased flexibility of powers by giving custodial-plus-training sentences in preference to community service. Because the training element is attractive to magistrates, they are referring more young people for custodial sentences, whereas that may not always be the most; propriate approach.
  I should be grateful for the Minister's response on the long-term picture. Will there be a major role for prisons of that kind? Clearly there are very violent people who have to be locked up to protect society, but is not there a way to achieve an environment in which the numbers held are much smaller and the pressures exerted much less severe?
  7.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing time for the debate, whose title is so broadly cast that, at first sight, I did not think that he would concentrate so much on Feltham. However, I welcome any attention being paid to that institution. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) for the concern that he shows for the matter and I also welcome interest when it comes from neighbouring Twickenham.
  I would take issue with those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who uncharitably mock his interest in Feltham. The more London Members who are concerned about what happens there, the better it will be. As London Members, we all have constituents who sadly end up in that place and we all have constituents who have an interest in Feltham making its contribution to cutting crime. That, and reducing recidivism while holding prisoners in safe and decent secure conditions, have to lie at the heart of Feltham as an institution. That is what it is all about, and I acknowledge our debt of gratitude to all those who work at, with and in Feltham to that end.

  631
  I of course include staff in that, but I include, too, the board of visitors, which I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the more than 20 voluntary sector organisations that spend time in Feltham contributing to the regime and to building the links between the institution and the wider community, which are so important to ensuring effective resettlement and reintegration in the community.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about progress at Feltham. Real progress has been made since he last addressed the matter in the House, but there is no room for complacency and we still have a way to go. There is a distinction, to which he drew attention, between Feltham A and Feltham B in terms of the quality of the regimes for under-18s and over-18s. Undoubtedly, progress has been made on the regime for under-18s—he drew attention to several aspects of that—as a result of a not inconsiderable investment in new youth justice resources, which has characterised the Government's approach to ensuring that young people are effectively diverted from crime and have their criminal activities properly addressed by the police, the courts, the probation service and prisons. It is vital that all those agencies, as parts of the criminal justice system, work together. They work best when they enable the voluntary sector and the community to make an input to reducing reoffending and creating effective reintegration to the community.
  So that no one is in any doubt, let me make the point that our view is that the courts should be able to remand or, on conviction, sentence young people to young offender institutions when they believe that the offences committed by and the circumstances of a young person merit that. It is our responsibility to ensure—as we will—that enough places are available for young people to be held in safe, secure and decent conditions. My response to the hon. Gentleman's question about the future of institutions such as Feltham is that there will be a continuing role for institutions that can hold young people in such conditions, whether they are on remand or have been sentenced.
  I must add, however, that it is important to provide the courts with a range of options. That has been a hallmark of the Government's approach to youth offending, and it is why we have placed such emphasis on the role of the youth offender team. The team is important in the context of disposal, which involves probation services, social services, the police, the voluntary sector and health authorities working together to ensure that young people's needs are met, and that the incidence of offending is reduced.
  We also introduced those youth offender panels to divert first-time offenders who admit guilt from the criminal justice system. Ours is a dual approach, which recognises the importance of ensuring that there is adequate provision for secure holding while also investing in the availability of sentencing options that can be delivered in the community, and which involves an ever-closer working relationship between those responsible for secure accommodation, or custody, and the probation service. We want to ensure that, whatever the courts decide, matters involving education and health are addressed.
  The health issue is important. I visited Feltham on new year's eve; indeed, I visited a number of prisons on new
  632
  year's eve. My visit gave me an opportunity to view the health-care centre again. It has improved enormously, in terms of its fabric and also in terms of staff numbers, but a number of deeply troubled and distressed young people are held there.
  We should of course ensure that there is effective transmission to the national health service and the wider mental health care system, and that such transmission is expedited. That is being achieved through ever-closer working relationships between the NHS and the prison health-care service. However, we should also do all that we can to reduce the number of incidents of self-harm at Feltham. Mandatory suicide awareness training for all staff was completed at the end of December, and a "buddy" scheme will shortly be introduced. Listener training has also been completed.
  The question of facilities in general is important. The Prison Service has been working actively with the Youth Justice Board to alleviate pressures at Feltham, and to bring the population of under-18s within the establishment's capacity of 240. The number has been within that total since November, and we intend to do all we can to ensure that it is not exceeded. We have achieved the reduction by redesignating remand to "sentenced" accommodation at Ashfield and Onley, and creating an additional 90 "sentenced" places at Hollesley Bay.
  It is true that we now need to concentrate more on provision for the over-18s, and to seek resources accordingly. That is not going to be easy, but we shall certainly be focusing on it. Hon. Members should not forget, however, that our achievements in relation to under-18s were made possible by a considerable injection of resources. Nevertheless, the director general is seeking to find new resources for over-18s at Feltham, and I support him 100 per cent. in that.
  We are working at Feltham to build on the staff's determination to address various issues, which undoubtedly include racism, institutional racism, the importance of the RESPOND—racial equality for staff and prisoners—programme and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the importance of ensuring greater diversity among staff. As he will be aware, the Commission for Racial Equality also is taking an interest in Feltham.
  There are also issues of recruitment and sickness at Feltham. Throughout the Prison Service, however, management is placing a new focus and emphasis on addressing the sickness issue. Sickness levels are unacceptably high and we have to ensure that they are reduced. It is a challenge for management and for unions.
  There are real recruitment and retention issues in the south-east, largely because of the cost of accommodation. That point was made to me very forcefully by Feltham staff when I last met them to discuss the issue. Therefore—with colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the office of the London Mayor and others—we are working on who will be designated as key workers. We should ensure that prison officers are among the key workers for whom extra assistance is being investigated to alleviate accommodation problems in the south-east, particularly in London.
  So there have been some real improvements, but challenges remain. Everyone, however, is determined to tackle those challenges. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's very well made point on management continuity at

  633
  Feltham, especially in relation to its governor. There are various reasons for management changes at Feltham, sadly including sickness. However, we are working to ensure continuity, high-quality management and leadership at the establishment.
  I pay tribute again to all who are concerned to improve Feltham. I am also absolutely determined to ensure that the Prison Service and the Home Office do all in our
  634
  power to ensure that Feltham makes a real contribution to crime reduction—by holding those young people, whether under 18 or over 18, in safe, secure and decent conditions. The more debates there are on such institutions and the greater hon. Members' interest in them, the better it will be. I am grateful for the opportunity to have contributed to this important debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Greening Government Initiative
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 341, and the Sixth Report from the Committee, Session 1998–99, HC 426, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4819.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order Before we begin, I am conscious that the heating in this Chamber is a little hotter than it ought to be, and we are taking steps to modify it as quickly as possible.
2.30 pm
Mr. John Horam: I am glad that you mentioned the heating, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To roast and steam in Westminster Hall does not contribute to the greening government initiative, although I am sure that the problem is not the Government's fault. Although energy efficiency is not at its greatest at the moment, our ever solicitous officials are doubtless attending to the matter.
It is often said that, "success has many fathers and failure is an orphan". The phrase "greening government initiative" is rather felicitous and I have tried to track down its author. Given its nature, one would imagine that it originated from the Government, but it appeared in 1997–98 in the second report of the Environmental Audit Committee, which stated:
This second report is the first of what the Committee plans will be annual reports on the progress of the Government in integrating environmental considerations into decision-making in every department at every level as an important part of its pursuit of sustainable development. This is referred to as the 'Greening Government Initiative'.
So far as I can see, that was the first time that that phrase and definition were used. The Government have taken up the phrase and I welcome that, because it encapsulates what we—and the Government—are trying to do.
The report continued:
The new administration took office committed to the pursuit of sustainable development. This reflects the manifesto pledge that 'concern for the environment will be put at the heart of policy-making' and the words of the Prime Minister at the United Nations last year—
that is, in 1997—
'We must make the process of government green. Environmental considerations must be integrated into all our decisions, regardless of sector. They must be in at the start, not bolted on later'.
Immediately after that quotation, the Committee thought it wise to state, in bold type, the following clear conclusion:
We applaud the Government's objectives on sustainable development. We believe that political leadership from the very top is absolutely vital for the implementation of this agenda.
144WH
That remains the Committee's view and I shall return to that matter later in my introductory remarks, but suffice it to say that political leadership from the very top is important in getting the greening government initiative fully into play.
The Committee's policy to look regularly at greening government was followed up by two further reports. In effect, there have been three EAC reports on the initiative. I am glad to say that the Government have published two further reports on greening government, the latest of which appeared in November. In addition, the Committee thought it sensible to conduct a self-audit on the work of our first Parliament. We called it, "Environmental Audit: The First Parliament", and it was published earlier this month. It not only analyses our performance, set against the targets that were in the Committee's remit when the Government established it, but provides a commentary on the Minister's and the Government's performance in greening government in the past three and a half years.
I shall discuss some of the issues that have arisen during that time. We have produced several reports on matters of concern to us and to the Government, such as water, energy efficiency, genetically modified organisms, international treaties and multilateral agreements. Our work rate of seven or eight reports a year is commendably high by Select Committee standards and all my colleagues have contributed enormously to that. We have tried to give an overview of the Government's performance with regard not only to the greening government initiative, but to the actions of the Treasury in successive Budgets. Greening the budgetary processes of taxation and spending lies at the heart of a true greening government approach.
Frankly, the results have been mixed. I shall set out the aspects that I applaud. I pay tribute to the Minister's commitment to the cause and to his energy in trying to ensure that a genuine greening government approach is more widespread throughout government. He is to be commended for being an assiduous and effective Minister for the Environment. Sadly, perhaps in two months or so he will therefore relinquish his responsibilities in favour of someone else. Who knows? None the less, he can look back with some pleasure on his three and a half years in the job.
The Minister will recall that when we first discussed his role, we paid particular attention to that of Chairman of the Green Ministers Committee. Doubtless to his embarrassment, we pointed out that it had had two meetings in the first 12 months of the Parliament, one of which was a photocall. There was a tendency for civil servants to replace Ministers on the Committee, which made us less than comfortable about the level of importance that the Government attached to it. Since then, matters have improved. There are now three regular meetings a year with proper agendas and a much more coherent analysis of what individual Departments are doing. We asked for that, and we got it.
The "Greening Government" document published by the Government in November states that, apart from those three meetings at ministerial level, there are no fewer than six official meetings. That is interesting and perhaps unprecedented in Whitehall terms. Usually, ministerial meetings are shadowed and preceded by an official meeting to hammer out the details. In this case,

145WH
not only are there six official meetings, but senior civil servants in each Department—I use the word "senior" advisedly, but I am not sure who is involved—are responsible for considering environmental matters. I can therefore say without reservation that the mechanics of the process for establishing a greening government framework are there to be built on.
I am impressed by the work of members of the team at the sustainable development unit, who have been present at many of our discussions and press conferences. I am sure that the Minister would like me to pass on to them our approbation of their many efforts.
Having said that the framework is pretty good, it is hard to find anything to praise in the same terms beyond that. In my view, and the Minister is aware of this, environmental appraisal is at the heart of greening government. If policies are not appraised for their environmental consequences or their effects on sustainable development, there is no greening government approach: there is a hollow where there should be a policy.
I notice that the Government tackle that matter head on in the document "Greening Government" published last November. It says on page 29 in paragraph 4.11:
So far, 6 departments have published environmental appraisals.
That is quite a small minority of Departments after three and a half years. It goes on:
Figure 4.2 below lists all the separate environmental appraisals published between April 1999 and March 2000, as well as listing a number of examples of environmental appraisals that were included in wider appraisal documents.
That slightly fudges matters, but that was the Government's statement.
In table 4.2 on page 30 of the document is a list of freestanding environmental appraisals. The list is pretty revealing and what it reveals is rather unsatisfactory, because there are not six Departments but more like four. The Treasury seems to be triple counting, because it has, "HMT, C&E and DETR", which is obviously a combined operation, and then "IR"—for Inland Revenue—so it counts itself three times.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence are the four Departments doing serious environmental appraisal work. The DETR has no fewer than 27 environment appraisals, which is an impressive number—it has hardly had that many policies. The DTI has quite an impressive list, including something listed as "Pending", but now, I gather, extant, the UK coal operating aid scheme, which has been environmentally appraised. I understand that that has been produced quite recently. Then there is Her Majesty's Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, which is doing a strategic environmental assessment of the strategic defence review.
The first point is that the DETR's success shows the inertia of other Departments. I suspect that there are a few genuine enthusiasts and a lot of people who feel that the policy is being imposed on them. They are not enthusiastic in the way that the four Departments that I have named are. In any case, four Departments are too few, given the total number.
146WH
Those four, in particular the Treasury, demonstrate some of the difficulties that we face in trying to persuade the Government to undertake proper environmental appraisals. My colleagues on the EAC will recall that just before Christmas the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—the Green Minister—was before us to discuss fuel duty. That duty, which has caused perhaps the Government's biggest crisis, is a measure with environmental implications: the effect of the escalator in the first three years of the Government and then the abandonment of the escalator and the freezing of fuel duty.
The difficulties that we face were instanced by the exchange between myself, the hon. the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and the Financial Secretary during that meeting. I said:
The Government has set out a model way of doing environmental appraisals with which we are all familiar. We have discussed at endless length with endless Green Ministers a model way of doing it. You have not done it on this occasion, have you?
I was referring to the November pre-Budget report and the changes in fuel duty in it. The Financial Secretary replied:
What I would say is that we have supplied the information to the Committee and to members of the public.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said:
Environmental appraisal is different.
I said:
You have supplied conclusions. You have not supplied the reasoning.
The Financial Secretary replied:
It is the case—and I am being prompted to remind me—that we do assess all budget measures for their environmental impacts using the guidance which has been set out by DETR.
I asked:
Can we see that? Can we see the papers on the environmental appraisal which was done which you are now mentioning?
Mr. Maxwell, a civil servant, replied:
I know that the Government has made available the documentation about environmental appraisal of measures it has introduced.
I replied:
Not to this Committee. We have seen nothing in the nature of an environmental appraisal of the changes in fuel duty which have taken place. Remember that you did this back in 1999. You stopped the fuel duty escalator in 1999 so there has been plenty of time for you to do a thorough analysis exposed to the public on exactly why you are dropping the fuel duty escalator.
The Financial Secretary, clearly deciding that he was on thin ground, shifted his argument:
What I would suggest is that not increasing fuel duty is not changing things.
That is a dangerous argument. He continued:
I know you have some difficult things and you carry out an environmental impact assessment of them.
I replied:
I would say it is changing things dramatically.
I shall spare the Financial Secretary's blushes by not continuing with that exchange. Indeed, I must say that he is an intelligent, honest Minister. We all hold him in high regard and I do not wish to single him out. I am simply trying to illustrate the difficulty that we have in getting proper environmental appraisals, even from a good Minister. The Financial Secretary concluded:

147WH
I simply say that we have amply set out the thinking that we have been through which has led us to the conclusions that we have announced and published. The difference between us is about our understanding of what the nature of the decision about the fuel duty escalator was.
I replied:
Surely we agree that there has been a change in policy.
The Financial Secretary responded:
There has indeed.
At last, the truth came out. I commented:
That is right. What we are saying is that every policy of this kind which has major environmental effects must have an environmental appraisal underneath it, sustaining it, discussing it and justifying it. That is Government policy.
That is the difficulty that we face in extracting proper environmental appraisals.
Furthermore, the document on which the Financial Secretary's civil servants were prompting him was not an environmental appraisal in the model sense; it consisted of the answers to the questions put by the Environmental Audit Committee in summer 1999. It was not, in any sense, a justification of the fundamental change in the fuel duty escalator, but an explanation of why there was an escalator. The document was clearly about elasticity and the effect on fuel consumption, in both the short and the long term, of the duty increasing steadily above the rate of inflation. It was not, for example, an analysis of social or re-distributive effects, or alternative policies. Those are the difficulties that we face in obtaining environmental appraisals from a Department that has at least begun to try in this area. Indeed, it is one of only four Departments that are recognised by the Government as undertaking environmental appraisals.
This morning, we had an interesting session on fuel duty with a number of interviewees, including representatives of BMW, BP Oil and the Institute of European Environmental Policy. We discussed the greener fuel challenge, which the Government set up to encourage analysis of alternative fuels in the course of their change of policy on fuel duty. The Minister will agree that alternative fuels pose fundamental questions about the future. Our witnesses made it plain that the remit of the Chancellor's greener fuel challenge was based on fuels that could be delivered by the existing infrastructure; for example, one could switch from diesel to biodiesel without dramatic changes. In their view, it did not allow for the examination of hydrogen fuel, which many people believe to be the fuel of the future. Hydrogen fuel technology would mean huge changes to the infrastructure of our garage forecourts. However, it is excluded from the greener fuel challenge.
Our witnesses also pointed out that the greener fuel challenge relied on vested interests—the oil companies and so forth—putting forward their bids for Government support for the technology that they believed was theirs. Hydrogen does not have vested interest support behind it because it is a new fuel, so for that reason too there is concern that it is likely to fall by the wayside. Although the Government and the Treasury have learned a great deal while examining those significant matters, will the Minister consider, with his Treasury colleagues, what improvements can be made?
So much for policy and environmental appraisal. As I have said, one or two Departments are doing well, but beyond that there seems to be a desert. The second part
148WH
of the Committee's remit is to consider and analyse, not only the policies that Ministers are pursuing, but the targets that have been set and the extent to which they have been fulfilled. It is fair to say that the Government have set many targets for other people—health, education and so on are riddled with them. They cannot be excused for not setting targets for themselves, given that they set them for others, both in the public and the private sectors.
To be fair, when the Government took office in 1997 they instituted a plethora of reviews. That certainly slowed down the process of targeting. The Minister will probably say, and I fully accept this, that time must be taken to reflect on targets if they are to be sensible, that there ought not to be too many and that therefore the extent to which the Government have been able to proceed with targets has been limited. Accordingly, the extent to which we can examine and audit them is equally limited.
In addition to the complaint made by the Select Committee, I note that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport said that the search for measurable outputs from this Government appeared to be akin to that for the holy grail, which shows that others have experienced the same difficulty. Speaking non-politically, however, the Government inherited targets. The previous Conservative Government set a target to improve energy efficiency on the Government estate by 20 per cent. on 1990–91 levels by March 2000. That target is now nine months overdue. The Minister might be able to tell us more, but my latest information is that, despite best efforts, the Government will only be able to marshal the information on this Government-wide target on their own estate by Easter this year, a year after the deadline. The Minister is looking puzzled, but that is my information.
We have suggested, out of the goodness of our hearts, that the National Audit Office should then analyse the information to find out whether it is sound and what it shows. I imagine that that would take at least six months—I do not see that it could be done in less—after which it would report to the EAC, possibly in the next Parliament. We are therefore talking about two years after the Government deadline before we find out whether they have met their target.
The Government should examine these problems carefully and consider whether they are putting enough effort into analysing and marshalling the information in a way that can be presented to those who have to audit it, whoever they may be—the NAO or ourselves—and if they are satisfied with that process. In our latest report, looking back on our three and a half years of existence, we suggest that the gap in our facilities was the audit gap. While on the whole we had done well on examination of policy, we had not done so well on the checking of Government targets. We said that what was needed was some sort of watchdog, possibly an independent green unit attached to the NAO, but the Committee was open to suggestions as to how it should be set up. We need such a body to help us as parliamentarians to examine some of the targets that are central to the greening government process.
I am pleased that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is present. We went to Canada to see the arrangements there and made a worldwide trawl of

149WH
environmental audit as it exists elsewhere. Canada has an environmental auditor of the sort that I am describing with a full staff, as does Australia and New Zealand. Environmental audit is becoming increasingly important throughout the world and we are going beyond the rhetoric of the early 1990s when sustainable development was discussed and international meetings took place to set targets and parameters. People are now looking to countries to deliver and that requires targets, so environmental audit is moving up the agenda. We recommended that the UN Commission on Sustainable Development should include measurement of national performance in the Rio plus 10 discussions in 2002 because the matter is serious. We must make progress and that is the only way to do so.
In conclusion, the Government are to be commended for laying down a proper framework to enable Parliament and the public to analyse the process of greening government. However, progress on individual policies has not been coherent and the ability to meet auditable targets has not been achieved. The Prime Minister's pledge in June 1997 at the United Nations to put greening policies at the heart of government has not been sustained or even achieved. Despite the best efforts of the two Ministers of State who are present, we shall not achieve that important objective until leadership is provided from the top—from the Prime Minister and No. 10.
2.57 pm
Ms Joan Walley: First, I welcome the debate and want to put on record the tremendous work load that was undertaken by all members of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, backed up by the Clerks. We have proved that we are a workhorse Select Committee.
As parliamentarians, one of our main objectives is to find ways to work with the Government to ensure that, having made so much progress on putting environmental audit and sustainability within the Government's role, we can now make progress on delivery. Before my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office leaves, I want to say that we have seen tremendous progress from the Government and I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend on the environmental unit that has been set up in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Government have introduced many initiatives. We shall monitor them carefully to see how they are linked to everyday government.
My opening comments refer to progress. During the three and a half years since 1997, the Labour Government's achievement has been almost unprecedented, which is a credit to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the Government. The Select Committee has been consistent in its views. We said at the outset that we wanted sustainability to be at the heart of government and that has been a thread throughout our reports.
I remind my right hon. Friend of our earlier report, in which we said that we want to review where the sustainable development unit should be. It is not a policy set in stone and, unless the sustainable
150WH
development unit can be brought into the Cabinet, it will not be mainstreamed. It needs to be central, so that it can draw together each initiative of every Department. Although the Green Ministers Committee and the Cabinet Committee on the Environment have made some progress, the approach is still not holistic. I cannot help but consider similar initiatives such as the women's unit, which was based in the Cabinet, and the social exclusion unit, which produced the draft neighbourhood renewal strategy last week. The performance and innovation unit is a further example of a unit inside the Cabinet. We should reconsider that issue.
I do not want to underestimate the work of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but in the light of the Cabinet's sponsoring of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, perhaps the time has come to consider bringing the sustainable development unit into the Cabinet. Rather than being relevant to just one Department, the unit would thereby extend horizontally and vertically throughout Government, linking with the various partnerships. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Reference was made at the beginning of the debate to the heating in this Chamber and such problems frequently arise. Although it is not the job of the Select Committee to consider the greening of the parliamentary estate, we must recognise that in this building we do not, for example, recycle paper as we should, or deal properly with the commissioning of services, including heating. It was pointed out to me only a couple of weeks ago that this building has various underfloor ducts that could provide efficient heating. I put on record the need to conduct a full green assessment of the parliamentary estate.
Our Committee is very much a workhorse. Due to the issues with which it deals, it is not perceived as particularly glamorous. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who chairs the Committee, has done an exceptionally good job in dealing with issues, such as those to which he referred in his introductory remarks, and it is absolutely vital that we follow matters up. In particular, we must consider public procurement, which many of our reports have considered in a technical sense. There are many inconsistencies and contradictions throughout Government and European policy in that regard. We must consider public procurement in the context of the follow-up to Seattle, which is about to get under way. It is particularly relevant to the work of our Committee, because it is concerned as much with the operation of Government Departments as long-term policy.
One example concerns the G8 summit in Okinawa and the illegal timber trade. At the time of the summit, I pressed the Minister on issues relating to procurement. The Government and the Prime Minister undertook not to buy unsustainably logged timber. We have examined the implementation of that policy. Given that we have considered the matter in detail as part of our work on greening government. I hope that the Minister will refer to it in his response. Even a policy that aims to do no more than use recycled paper and sustainable timber has to take into account the Treasury guidance on purchasing policy. It is a classic case of whatever one

151WH
says, the Treasury takes a firm line on it. All Government procurement has to represent value for money.
The Committee looked in detail at the Gershon review, which considered the relationship between procurement policies and public-private partnerships. We are concerned that the Office of Government Commerce does not allow Departments to factor environmental issues into the sum total of what should, or should not, be purchased, and that it is difficult to implement procurement policies that take account of how to save the environment.
We must mainstream environmental concerns into the Treasury rules on procurement. Many appendices and satellite guidances exist, but they are not part of the main document. On 28 July, the Minister made a statement about making binding the voluntary guidance to Departments on buying sustainable timber. How can that be achieved, given that it might not be consistent with Treasury guidance and European directives? Last summer, Greenpeace ran a major campaign against logging, which is destroying the environment and biodiversity and contributing to global warming. The Environmental Audit Committee must be able to monitor how policies are translated into practice. I would also be grateful for information about the Government's progress on ISO 1400 in terms of performance indicators.
On local authorities, I am pleased that compulsory competitive tendering has been replaced with best value, and that environmental duties have been placed on local authorities. However, those duties relate only to what is best within the geographical area covered by the relevant local authority or regional development agency. We must ensure that procurement policies, whether for contracts or buying pencils, attach a monetary value to environmental considerations, so that we consistently arrive at the most practicable measures.
One of our reports considers the Ministry of Defence, to try to assess how green Government policy is. In the past couple of weeks, I have been closely involved with matters relating to depleted uranium, mainly because some of the armed forces who took part in the Gulf war were recruited from Staffordshire. To see that issue through properly, the Government should ensure that the Ministry of Defence carries out an environmental appraisal of the use of depleted uranium in its shells. What procedures exist for that type of environmental assessment and how can they be mainstreamed into all aspects of policy making?
On global warming, the Government must be congratulated on the way in which our Ministers and our Deputy Prime Minister have been centre stage on the world scene in developing policy initiatives on climate change and global warming. A couple of weeks ago, I saw that forecasts predict that many of our traditional ski resorts will no longer exist because of global warming and climate change and that this issue is now coming home to people.
Much work has been done through the Kyoto agreement and we almost reached agreement in the last round of talks. We are on target for the 20 per cent. cut, which is fantastic, but in the long term we must see now how we can achieve the 60 per cent. cut recommended
152WH
by the royal commission. Is the Department of Trade and Industry taking on board what needs to be done about renewable energy and how does it link up with other Departments? We must ensure that delivery mechanisms are in place at every level so that decisions are wholly consistent with environmental sustainability.
Given the number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall flag up a final point—value added tax on brownfield developments, another issue to which the Environmental Audit Committee has consistently referred. If we are really to be a greening government, not only the comprehensive spending review but the Budget must take every opportunity to promote sustainable development. Sooner rather than later I would love to see an equalisation of VAT for brownfield sites, so that we have all the advantages of not building on greenfield sites and make best use of sustainable transport in urban areas. That does not come without a cost: it requires additional and transitional sums of money and also an acknowledgment from the Treasury that environmental appraisals of the sort to which the hon. Member for Orpington referred will be undertaken at the heart not only of Government but of the Treasury. If we can put the Government's successes of the past three and a half years behind us, start from where we are now and achieve the 60 per cent. cuts in global warming, we can build on the firm foundation that my right hon. Friend the Minister has done so much to establish.
3.12 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: In "A Better Qualify of Life; A strategy for sustainable development for the UK", the Prime Minister said:
We must hold ourselves to account as a government, but also as a country.
I agree entirely with that statement.
The Environmental Audit Committee, which was a Labour manifesto commitment, was set up to ensure that Labour delivers on its sustainability commitments. That I also welcome. Indeed, it is nice to see that, with the setting up of the EAC, one early pledge has been delivered. However, we see from the report before us, "The Greening Government Initiative", that, although the EAC has been established, its effectiveness and the Government's ability to deliver their sustainability commitments must be questioned.
The report states that the EAC cannot do its job properly because the Government have not set enough targets. It concludes:
On the second half of our remit, auditing the Government's performance against its targets, it is plain that the record is inadequate. This failure is because there have been few Government targets to audit.
I find that statement hard to understand or believe. Had I been a member of the Environmental Audit Committee I might have understood why it felt that there were too few targets to monitor. Our research shows that the Government have done the opposite: they have set too many targets.
When we published research last year, we found that the Government had identified about 8,000 targets that they wanted to achieve, that new targets were being set at the rate of about one a day and that no fewer than 429 had been set by the DETR. Far from there not being enough targets, it sounds to me as though there are a surfeit.

153WH
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published "Quality of Life Counts" in 1999, which offers a baseline assessment of indicators for a sustainability strategy. That thick document is full of targets and juicy facts and figures. If it is opened at any page, the diagrams make it clear whether the Government are on track to deliver. For example, a rough glance suggests that the area of woodland in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is static, but is increasing slightly in Scotland, so there has been some success in Scotland but not elsewhere.
I would like to know why the EAC finds it so difficult to use the information and whether the presentation is lacking. Perhaps the Government should review how the information is put into the public domain to ensure that it is easier to use for monitoring purposes.
I agree with another of the Select Committee's statements—that the Government should sharpen their approach to target setting. Targets, and the auditing of them, should be a means of opening up government and making it more accountable to the public, but what are the public to make of those 429 targets? I am sure that since my researcher put pen to paper or finger to keyboard a few more have been added to that list. Should the Government not be setting priorities instead of simply producing a list of targets? That would be a more focused way to deliver important priorities.
With so many targets to monitor, it will be easy to miss failures and areas in which the Government are beginning to slip. A good example was revealed in a report by the Schroeder Salomon Smith and Barney working group, which was reported in the Financial Times yesterday. It warned that Britain is in danger of missing its target of generating 10 per cent. of its electricity from renewable resources by 2010. That target was worth setting and achieving and it is worthy of monitoring, as it will play a vital part in any strategy to fight greenhouse gas emissions or climate change. Liberal Democrats have called for that target to be even tougher and we would like an extra 1 per cent. of energy to be generated from renewable resources every year after 2010. That is a reasonable figure to aim for over a long period.
Mr. Tim Loughton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government could set a good example if they started to make rapid progress towards a 10 per cent. renewable energy target for energy used by their own Departments?
Mr. Brake: I agree and I shall come to that shortly.
With 429 balls to juggle, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions risks fumbling some of them, which will fall to the ground. If their priorities were focused, their targets could be more ambitious. For example, the target for recycling household waste is 30 per cent. by 2010. A tougher target could be set: 60 per cent. by 2010 is not unrealistic. My own local authority is on target to achieve 50 per cent. within the next 12 months and has set a more ambitious target of 80 per cent. for a few years hence— in the face of stiff opposition from local Conservatives who prefer a scheme that would cost £850,000 more and achieve a lower recycling rate.
154WH
Sustainability must be at the heart of all policy making and the previous Government's record shows why. At the end of their period of office, the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the European Union league table for renewable energy and there does not appear to have been any improvement since.
I do not know whether any hon. Members have seen the article on sustainable energy in the Parliamentary Monitor. All the parties were invited to submit an article on the subject—my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) did so. In the article written by the Conservative spokesman, there is not one mention of sustainable energy. The title, which I suspect was written by the Parliamentary Monitor, is "Red tape strangles green future", but in the article there is nothing about sustainable energy. The only reference to environmental matters is that the Conservatives would take out of the Utilities Act 2000 the environmental objectives that have been set, but that is the only comment relating to sustainable energy.
Mr. Loughton: It is clear that I was not the author of that article, but if the hon. Gentleman does a little more research and looks into the Opposition's more comprehensive policy on the use of renewable energy, which involves more generous tax breaks than those currently available, he might be impressed by them.
Mr. Brake: I would love to be impressed, but I am bemused as to why no reference was made to sustainable energy in the article when that was the subject for which the request was made.
To return to the position of the Government, despite their welcome commitments, renewable energy still accounts for only 2 per cent. of primary energy and the legal obligations on electricity companies are not restricted to UK-based renewables. We have argued for that policy to stimulate the UK renewables industry, in the same way that the Danes have cornered the wind turbine market. Putting sustainability at the heart of policy making would be a good example of joined-up thinking, benefiting the environment and generating thousands of jobs, particularly in the manufacturing industry.
Another good example would be transport. Getting people off the roads and back on to public transport is a vital part of any sustainability strategy, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree. What better target could there be than that in a statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1997—one that I am sure he now regrets. He said:
I will have failed, if in five years' time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it.
We are monitoring that target closely and, so far, he will clearly miss it. With the chaos in the rail industry, it appears that people are switching in greater numbers to their cars or to air travel. In sustainability terms that is not something that we want to encourage. Furthermore, the transport policies that the Government are pushing through—part privatisation for London Underground or National Air Traffic Services—are neither effective nor sustainable. They are not designed to boost confidence in mass transit transport.
As at least one other hon. Member has said, it is incumbent on us as Members of Parliament to look to the environment in which we work. I shall not mention

155WH
the temperature of this room, which I am pleased to say is beginning to drop slightly, but clearly, the premises in which we are seated are environmentally highly inefficient. How can we expect big business and industry to do as we say if we do not do as we say? We must lead by example in Government Departments and the House of Commons.
In the past year, I have tabled a series of questions based on the 429 environmental targets set by the Deputy Prime Minister for the DETR. The answers revealed that waste disposed of in House of Commons sacks marked "Waste for Recycling" is incinerated, which is not especially green. The high-grade office waste paper that is diligently separated by some hon. Members is also incinerated, despite that being against Government advice that that is not the best environmental option. On a point made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the House of Commons has refused to set a target for purchasing electricity from renewable sources, yet that is an easy thing to do.
My local authority, the London borough of Sutton, which I love to quote because it is Liberal Democrat, has identified the five largest buildings that consume electricity in the borough. Contracts have been let for renewable energy to supply them and a substantial proportion of their electricity now comes from renewable sources. That did not take much work or effort, although it costs a little more. When our local party headquarters, which is being refurbished, is back on stream it will also be supplied with green electricity. A simple signature on a new contract can achieve a dramatic increase in renewable energy use.
Mr. Loughton: Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's general election campaign launch, with references to his local Liberal Democrat party office, intrigues us, we are debating the report on greening government by the Environmental Audit Committee, which I cannot recollect him mentioning.
Mr. Brake: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was overcome by the heat in the Chamber and did not hear my comments. The debate concerns the work of the Environmental Audit Committee and greening government. It should be about hon. Members setting an example, which is why I illustrated how we can easily implement measures at little or no cost.
There is scope for composting within the Palace of Westminster, as there are nearby parks with which we could enter into an arrangement; no organic waste is composted in the Palace of Westminster. No targets have been set for reducing water consumption in line with the greening government initiative, which is something on which my local authority has embarked. It is easily done, so we should aim to do it here. Perhaps the frantic writing that is taking place precedes a confirmation from the Government that they have acted on my parliamentary questions. If they have not, will the Minister put on the record a commitment to take up those issues?
There are 1,780 monitors on the parliamentary estate, which are permanently switched on or on standby. I do not know how much electricity they consume, but they
156WH
contradict the Government's advice in the "Are you doing your bit?" advertisement; clearly, we are not doing our bit here.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's recital of what ought to happen in the House of Commons, which is not the Government's responsibility. It is the responsibility of hon. Members through the House of Commons Commission and the various Committees. I assume, therefore, that his colleagues on those Committees have taken up each of his arguments.
Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, as it gives me an opportunity to comment on some of the good news. For instance, following the parliamentary question about how much paper is recycled and the answer that most of it was incinerated, I took up the matter with the Department of the Serjeant at Arms. It is investigating the possibility of joining a local paper scheme that would ensure that paper was purchased locally, recycled locally and that locally grown hemp was incorporated into the recycled paper to maintain the quality. Things are happening, therefore, since the parliamentary questions were returned.
I am not sure how long I have been speaking.
Mr. David Chaytor: Twenty minutes.
Mr. Brake: I am happy to give hon. Members the opportunity to comment from a sedentary position, but it might be helpful if there were a monitor here to display how long hon. Members had been speaking.
The environment should not be thought about in five-year parliamentary Sessions, with eyes on the voters each time. Governments should not abandon their environmental principles in exchange for tax cuts or other inducements in the run-up to elections. Our policies, as set out in our sustainability paper, cover a 40-year period and would tackle the most important issues that we face—those on which the Environmental Audit Committee and the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions focus. They include the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly—by 60 per cent. in the next 40 to 50 years.
The Government have had plenty of opportunities to make Parliament an example of how sustainability can work. They have also had many opportunities to apply the principle of an integrated sustainability policy. So far, they have failed on both counts. Setting targets is not enough; achieving them is what counts.
3.32 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the Chairman of our Committee, and endorse much of his analysis. I would not go quite so far on some of the issues and I want to draw attention to the Government's enormous achievements over the past three years in many areas. They have moved environmental policy to the top of the agenda and established the framework and structures that will enable it to stay there. However, those opening remarks provided a good introduction to the debate.

157WH
I must dissent on one specific point. The hon. Gentleman made a slightly disparaging reference to the first meeting of the Green Ministers Committee, which was, apparently, for photocall purposes only. I remind him that this morning's meeting of the Environmental Audit Committee started with a photocall at the Chairman's request—apparently for the local newspaper in Orpington. I also remind him that, should he wish to reproduce that photograph in his election literature, he would need the signed permission of every member of the Committee.
Mr. Horam: I did that after three and a half years of constant sittings, which is reasonable, rather than at the very first meeting, as was the case with the Green Ministers Committee.
Mr. Chaytor: I am not denying that the photocall was well deserved. I just point out that one has to think carefully before attacking others for sins of which one is guilty oneself.
This is a complex debate. It should be almost entirely about process, but most debates in the House are about policy. I find it a little difficult and confusing because I understood that we would be debating the Committee's fifth report, which was a review of the first report of the Green Ministers Committee, which was dated July 1999. The fifth report was completed in March 2000, so in a sense we are looking at historical events. I then discovered on today's Order Paper that we would also be considering our Committee's sixth report and the Government's joint response thereto. We therefore have a number of documents to consider. I question the practicality of combining two Committee reports and the Government's response to them both.
I also question the timing. I accept the inevitability of the arbitrary way in which topics, particularly Select Committee reports, are selected for debate in Westminster Hall, but it seems odd that, only a few weeks ago, our Committee published its first report of the 2000–01 Session, which is relevant to the issues that we are debating today, and next week the Government will launch the first report of the Sustainable Development Commission. We therefore have a multiplicity of documents to debate. The debate comes two years after some of the documents were published, immediately following the publication of another important document and shortly before the launch of an important Government statement. The process by which Select Committee reports are selected for debate needs to be reviewed.
We need to consider the availability of documents. I recall that, in their response to the Environmental Audit Committee's report, the Government argued that the report by the Green Ministers Committee should not be presented as a command paper. It was said that the Green Ministers Committee report had been widely circulated—1,500 copies were distributed—and that presenting it as a command paper would be more difficult and less cost effective.
I cannot comment on the comparative difficulty of the two different ways of circulating reports. However, on the evening before the debate, I went to the Vote Office
158WH
and asked for a copy of the Green Ministers Committee report. It was not available. I went to the Library to ask for a copy to read in my office, but was told that I could not take it away. The only feasible option in those circumstances was to print something off the web.
The availability of documents and—this is a much wider point than is strictly relevant to our debate—the different ways in which the Vote Office and the Library make documents available is a problem. I say now, and I shall be saying it elsewhere, that I have always found the Vote Office and Library staff immensely helpful, but the systems and the facilities with which they have to work leave a lot to be desired. It is astonishing that the Vote Office does not yet seem to use information technology. Documentation is written by hand into a large Dickensian-style ledger. That seems to be the basis of the information for the more obscure documents.
I pay tribute to the staff who serve our Committee. They have worked extremely hard and provide invaluable help and information. The Committee Clerk has produced a useful chart that lists some of the issues that have been the subject of recommendations by the Environmental Audit Committee that have not yet been accepted by Government.
We made the point that the approach to developing the sustainable development strategy had been unsatisfactory, with other major policy reviews being completed first—environment took a back seat to some extent—and with no formal link to the comprehensive spending review. Two comprehensive spending reviews have now taken place. We do not know whether they will be a feature of government every three years from now on. If so, I endorse the Committee's recommendation. It is unfortunate that the Government have not yet accepted the crucial importance of building sustainable development policy into the process of the comprehensive spending reviews.
Another point that we made quite strongly takes us back to the question of targets or, strictly speaking, sustainable development indicators. More rigorous—and independent—monitoring of the indicators is needed. We suggested that that task should be given to the Office for National Statistics. For reasons that I cannot quite recall, the Government did not accept that recommendation. The idea has merit because the Office for National Statistics has an accepted track record in such work. It has the appropriate expertise, the necessary authority and the element of independence that would confer authority to the monitoring work.
Another report recommendation has not yet been agreed by the Government: a major sustainable development debate should take place in the House of Commons on a Government motion. I cannot stress enough how important that is. I do not want to enter the debate about modernisation and about continuing debates on obscure motions into the early hours of the morning to get around the spirit of the report by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons but it is worth thinking about the allocation of time during the year and some of the issues that are guaranteed an annual debate. If it is part of the tradition—I do not say heritage—of the House to hold an annual debate on fisheries, it should be part of our tradition to hold an annual debate, on a Government motion, on sustainable development.

159WH
I endorse other hon. Members' comments about the need for more co-ordination. A multiplicity of activities goes on. A huge amount of work is done in different Departments, which, understandably, move at a differing pace according to the enthusiasm of Ministers and senior officials and the relevance of the environment to their work. I do not think that we shall ever achieve a uniform movement forward, but we need somehow to tie together the different locations of activity. The roles of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, the Green Ministers Committee and the sustainable development unit—it is important that that be placed within the Cabinet Office—need to be more clearly locked together. That will avoid fragmentation and prevent the different parts of the Government machine from moving in different directions.
Another question of process concerns appraisal. One of the aspects of appraisal that fascinates me is the extent to which the results are transparent, on the record and in the public domain. That point is linked to the debates that took place some months ago about freedom of information. I want to quote the Government's response to the recommendation that the sustainable development unit should provide six-monthly reports based on formal records of all major Government policies that are under review or in development which have a significant environmental impact. It states:
It would not be possible for the SDU to provide this information.
I accept that there is a limit to the amount of monitoring and reporting that can take place. The kiss of death for successful environmental policy is for it to get bogged down in an overly bureaucratic process. However, the defence given was:
The Committee is, however, free to ask for an explanation of the handling of any policy it selects…the SDU will notify departments where it believes new policies may have significant environmental obligations.
The difficulty is that we are being told that we can get an explanation after the event, but there can be no input in terms of environmental appraisal in advance of the policy being agreed.
I am sure that hon. Members could think of policies that have gone wrong or—at best—not been as effective as they might have been, simply because not enough thought was given to the environmental obligations at an early stage. That is true of the issue of depleted uranium, although the BSE crisis is perhaps the most spectacular example. I am sure that we all have our pet issues that exemplify the failings of a system that does not publish the environmental appraisal at an early stage. In the case of the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department on the Ilisu dam, Government policy was announced, or almost announced, long in advance of the point at which the Government said that an environmental appraisal would take place. I make a plea for appraisals to be done at an earlier stage and for the results of such appraisals to be on the record.
The role of our Committee and its ability effectively to monitor Government policy is linked to the role of the National Audit Office. I take great pleasure in placing on the record my party's policy statement from 1994, which argued for the establishment of the Environmental Audit Committee and for the National Audit Office to have a role in servicing that Committee. It states:
160WH
The Public Accounts Committee is as effective as it is partly because of its cross-departmental remit, but partly also because it has the back-up of the National Audit Office.
Our policy document argued that the National Audit Office should service the Environmental Audit Committee in the same way that it serviced the Public Accounts Committee. It states:
We will expand the role of the National Audit Office to include undertaking specific investigations at request of the Environmental Audit Committee, as well as providing it with regular information and advice. Auditing the environmental impact of policies is a more complex task than carrying out financial scrutiny, even where financial scrutiny involves judging "value for money". Environmental scrutiny involves making judgments about trade-offs, acceptable environmental damage, and likely, long-term impacts, The National Audit Office will therefore need to develop close links with the new Environment Agency, the science and environmental academic community…The Audit Committee will exist alongside the existing Environment Select Committee.
The case is made powerfully. I hope that the Government will consider that point further.
The issue of procurement has already been mentioned, but there is a contradiction. We have heard statements from the Prime Minister and other Ministers about the way in which the Government can use their purchasing power to shape emerging markets in environmentally friendly goods and materials. However, we have been told that the European directive on procurement strictly forbids going too far down that line.
I briefly flag up the crucial importance of procurement in establishing markets for more environmentally friendly materials, whether paper, timber, or one of the many other examples. All senior officials and Ministers ought to be obliged to scrutinise rigorously the European directive and to be convinced about the extent to which it restricts us. I suspect that the advice that the Government have been given by some senior officials on the extent to which procurement policy could be used to the advantage of the environment is not as accurate as it might be and might be the result of an over-cautious approach.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) touched on the subject of renewables. In spite of my natural aversion to Liberal Democrat populism, I agreed with much of what he said. The Government's response makes the point, so I shall quote it exactly. If the Government chose to source all their energy needs from renewables, that would exceed the 10 per cent. target that has been set for 2010. Interestingly, paragraph 45 of the Government's response, which is on page 16, states:
In terms of a Government-wide target, the public sector needs to ensure that it does not unduly tilt the balance of supply and demand, thereby affecting the price.
Forgive me for my naivety, but I thought that that was partly the point. Those who believe in renewable energy generally agree that there needs to be intervention to drive down the price of renewables, so that it is comparable in price with traditional polluting forms of energy.
We will have to return to that paragraph because it seems that, in one sense, the Government are holding back the development of renewables and the creation of a level playing field in the price of renewables and non-renewables. I do not want to seem too flippant, but it is

161WH
almost as though the Government are more concerned with protecting the share price of British Energy than seeing expansion of renewable forms of energy.
We have to think seriously about the extent to which, for example, the Department of Trade and Industry, which has an important role in protecting existing energy sectors, could hold the Government and other Departments back from moving to expand the market for renewables. It would be unfortunate if we found that the Government were acting as a restriction in that way.
The figure of 10 per cent. is remarkable. If the whole of the Government estate switched to renewables, the 2010 target would be achieved at a stroke. I do not think that anyone would suggest that, as it would cause problems with supply in the future, affect pricing and might be too drastic. I return to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about our need to look beyond 2010 and to have more ambitious targets for renewables. The Government are ideally placed to intervene in the energy market in a positive way, so that we are not restricted to 10 per cent. and can move beyond that, preferably before 2010 but certainly by then.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the Environment and the other Ministers who have been with us this afternoon, however briefly. I do not share the negative view that the Government have sidelined environmental policy or that they are not interested in it. The Prime Minister's commitment to put environment at the heart of government is on the way to being implemented. The Government could afford to be bolder, more radical and to move ahead more quickly, but to do that we must streamline our procedures, structures and processes. That is why this afternoon's debate is so important.
3.55 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I want to comment on three main areas of the Environmental Audit Committee report and the Government's response. Inevitably, in such a debate, we shall raise issues with Ministers on which we have a difference of view, or shall criticise what the Government may have said in response to our reports. However, like other hon. Members who have spoken, I believe that, since 1997, there has been a sea change in how environmental policies are dealt with in government. The agenda has shifted considerably. The creation of the Select Committee and the way in which it has been able to function and influence policy has been part of that change. Although I shall raise points on issues about which we might differ, it is important to put that on record.
The subjects that I want to speak about have already been raised by other members of the Committee. That reflects the degree of unanimity on the Environmental Audit Committee—a unanimity that still exists—on how we should approach some of the important questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) spoke about whether the Committee is functioning effectively, a question that was raised by other hon. Members.
The Green Ministers report and our response to it is part of our agenda today, and some of the difficulties that we had to deal with have now come to the surface.
162WH
We spoke about the difficulties of presentation of information within the Green Ministers report. We noted that it relied on qualitative statements and examples, that it was rather short on quantified data and that it was difficult to compare data across Departments. In commenting on that report, we mentioned the need for external validation by the National Audit Office of the Green Ministers report, but my hon. Friend also made that point in relation to the Committee's wider work.
We certainly said that we would like more of the raw data in the Green Ministers report to be made available, rather than simply reading the conclusions that Government Departments draw from it. That is where the audit might question the Committee's effectiveness. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) questioned whether the Committee had been effective. He might have consulted his Liberal Democrat colleague on the Committee, whoever it happens to be.
Last year, our Committee took evidence from Andrea Ross of the university of Dundee, who looked at the functioning of the Environmental Audit Committee. She said:
The Committee has had no opportunity to audit departmental performance against operational targets set by Ministers. The targets have simply not existed.
She went on to say that targeting was developing and that, as targets were set, the Committee's audit function would become more significant. It might well want to audit performance against the plethora of policy targets being introduced, both domestic and European, for climate change, waste, air quality, water quality and so on. She questioned whether the Committee's structure would be able to cope with that very detailed audit function. What is at issue is the nature of audit. We might want to look at, say, the Green Ministers report and whether long-term targets are being met. Reaching that target is not necessarily a straight-line graph. How do we actually look at the raw data and analyse that?
Mrs. Irene Adams (in the Chair): Order. I intend to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes in order to allow Members to participate in the Division. If a second Division is called, we shall reconvene at 4.30 pm. However, that will give us an extra 30 minutes at the end of the sitting, and we shall finish at 6 pm instead of 5.30 pm.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.30 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Gerrard: When we broke for the vote, I was referring to audit and the function of the National Audit Office in relation to the Select Committee. The Government have said that the Environmental Audit Committee is regarded as having the lead responsibility for audit, and clearly we accept that. The question that we have raised, and which I hope that Ministers will look at again, is the Committee's ability to perform that task. It would be difficult to imagine the Public Accounts Committee, which clearly has the prime responsibility for auditing public spending across Departments, being able to function without the spadework done for it by the NAO. That does not mean

163WH
that the PAC can direct the work of the NAO, any more than the EAC could direct the work of the NAO or a similar body, but it would give the EAC the ability to go into the raw data, to assess the veracity of claims that targets are being met and to analyse what is happening to a depth that cannot be done at present. That is the audit gap identified by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and perceived by all members of the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North raised questions about leadership and transparency, which are to some extent related. We have made the point, which I think the Government have accepted, about the need for political leadership. We have a Cabinet Committee, the "ENV" Committee, which is at the centre of government. However, we have not always been able to see the working relationship between ENV and the Green Ministers Committee. We commented in the report on the fact that there was no information about what the Green Ministers Committee had reported to ENV or what had come back from ENV regarding the future agenda and the tasks that should be performed.
We asked the Government to consider directing management and taking a strategic approach through environmental management systems. I noticed that, in their response, they quoted the Government target, which was
to have begun introducing an environmental management system by the end of the Parliament.
I have heard stronger commitments than "to have begun introducing". It is clear, as has already been said, that the number of Departments meeting the ISO standards is still relatively small—five central Government bodies and one national health service trust having reported achieving ISO 14,001.
I want to spend a little time on environmental appraisal policies, although they have already been mentioned. Apart from the limited number of appraisals, there seems to be confusion in the Government response between appraising options before they are implemented and appraising impact afterwards. Both are necessary. We accept that resources must be put where they can be of most use. Resources are not infinite, and a blanket requirement for a full environmental appraisal of every policy under consideration would probably mean that they were not used to best effect. What is needed is a filter to ensure that nothing slips through the net. Policy changes with an environmental impact could thereby be thoroughly assessed. Reference has rightly been made to the need for transparency, so that not only the chosen option but the various appraisals and competing options might be assessed.
Ms Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as an earlier Committee report noted, that is particularly important in respect of the environmental appraisal of transport options? We should not assume that investing in a particular mode of transport is the way to solve a given problem. A thorough environmental assessment
164WH
must consider all the options, so that a decision can be reached in the light of the various environmental concerns.
Mr. Gerrard: That is absolutely right. When evidence on transport was taken, the point was made on several occasions that it is difficult to consider the broader picture if one isolates and assesses only a specific aspect.
My hon. Friend mentioned an environmental impact assessment by the Ministry of Defence, and I must say that I am somewhat sceptical about that. I have a fairly good idea of the likely environmental impact of a Trident missile. She also mentioned depleted uranium, which is a good example. Recent reports suggest that British Nuclear Fuels is more or less putting depleted uranium in black sacks and disposing of it at waste tips. That might be a slight exaggeration, but disposal of depleted uranium is clearly an issue that needs to be considered.
Neither the Committee nor the Government has properly got to grips with how to carry out certain environmental impact assessments. I am thinking in particular of cases where spending and policy decisions are not made directly by Government Departments. The effects of procurement by Departments, and assessment of the decisions that they take and the operational policies that they develop, have been referred to frequently this afternoon. At the moment, much public policy and public money is delivered through other mechanisms such as agencies, the private finance initiative, local government and—in some areas, at least—public-private partnerships. It is also delivered through foreign policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North mentioned the Iliusu dam, which was not a Government project as such, in that someone else carried out the environmental impact assessment. Nevertheless, the outcome of that assessment and its influence on the policy decision by Government was clearly of great public interest.
The Government have accepted that the private finance initiative is important. Such projects can indeed be important in terms of their environmental impact, and reference will be made to environmental issues in the PFI guidance. Given that the Government have no direct responsibility in this regard, I find it difficult to grasp how we can monitor the way in which those assessments are carried out, and by whom. The same can be said of a wide range of non-departmental public bodies.
The Public Accounts Committee examines public spending by any body that is at least at arm's length from the Government. I recall seeing PAC reports on health service trusts and the Housing Action Trust, which operates in my old constituency. We must work out how to develop the environmental agenda in that context. Non-departmental public bodies have received a Cabinet Office guide, but how do we monitor them to ensure that it is implemented?
With regard to local government, many local authorities have made good progress with the local Agenda 21 strategies that the Government asked them to develop. According to the most recent figure that I have seen, the Government expected 86 per cent. of local authorities to meet the target of having developed a local Agenda 21 strategy by 2000. That is a good

165WH
proportion, but it is not 100 per cent. and it leaves scope for significant gaps. One of the Committee's earlier recommendations was that local authorities should have a statutory duty to develop a local Agenda 21 strategy.
Can the Minister tell us about local authority response to local Agenda 21 strategies? How close to 86 per cent.—or 100 per cent.—was the figure achieved by the target date in 2000? Significant amounts of public money are spent by local authorities, some of which are innovative and forward-looking in developing environmental strategies, while others are not so impressive. The Environmental Audit Committee and the Government should consider how to ensure that best practice spreads and that we can monitor what is happening and whether policies are effective.
The Government have made real progress since 1997, and we should not appear to be hypercritical, but there is scope for improvement and development in several respects. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with many of the points that hon. Members have raised.
Important policy areas such as the future functioning and structure of the Committee remain to be debated in the light of its most recent report. That is relevant to the issue of process, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, is an important feature of today's debate.
4.43 pm
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I preface my remarks by saying that I firmly believe that, since 1997, the Government have made real strides in environmental matters. My speech should be viewed in that context. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment have made a huge contribution to that process.
I shall focus on the Environmental Audit Committee's work on policy appraisal. Moving towards a more sustainable pattern of development is a "push me, pull you" process. The pull comes from the top through various strategies: waste, climate change, rural policy, urban regeneration and the sustainable strategy, which is at the very top and about which we have rightly heard so much today. Further pressure from the very top would be appreciated in the form of more vocalism and perhaps more enthusiasm from No. 10 Downing street, but perhaps that is a speech for another day.
The push must come from the bottom—from individual Departments—in the form of better policy making and the integration of environmental appraisal. It is crucial that the initiative be implemented in all Departments, not only the DETR—we know what it is doing and we support it—and not simply with respect to environmental policies. After all, we are an environmental audit committee and environmental appraisal of an environmental policy is just that—just appraisal.
I was gratified to see, among the 27 DETR environmental appraisals listed in the 2000 annual report, at least three or four on transport, housing and other planning issues. Other than that, the Green Ministers report rests on the strategic environmental assessment of the strategic defence review, the
166WH
Treasury's little table on the impact of environmental tax measures and some Department of Trade and Industry work on energy-related issues.
Progress on policy appraisal and the environment has been slow. Guidance has been around since 1991— nearly 10 years ago—and the DETR produced a user-friendly version in 1998. Despite that and a toughened Cabinet Office requirement, the first Green Ministers report said that some Departments were still
considering what to do about it all.
There has been no systematic openness about results. On the available evidence, it seems that Departments' objectives have slipped from reporting analysis of options and trade-offs to setting out the impact of selected decisions—a much more defensive activity.
The Cabinet Office requirement on a statement of environmental costs and benefits in departmental submissions was strengthened in 1998 in response to a recommendation by the Environmental Audit Committee. A review of the impact of the reform was promised. Although the report of that review has not been made available, the conclusions were summarised in the second Green Ministers report. The main finding was that the right procedures were in place, but that they needed be followed more systematically and that awareness had to be raised in Departments—they needed to look out for the less obvious environmental impacts of policies. That does not sound too bad on first reading. However, someone of a more cynical cast of mind than me might interpret it as fine words, but little action, save on the most obvious environmental policies.
As I have said, environmental policy is just appraisal. That reflects my concern over the operation of "ENV"—the Cabinet Committee on the Environment—as a whole. That Committee's remit was expanded to add sustainable development—integration and co-ordination of policy—to its previous purely environmental remit. However, it seems clear from evidence from the Cabinet Office that the Committee remains in its green quarter—its green silo—which suggests that it may not consider the environmental impact of non-environmental policies; those are said to be the province of other Cabinet Committees.
The Government's reply reports the Deputy Prime Minister having to write to other Cabinet Committees advocating the use of the sustainable development strategy as a guide and encouraging them to involve ENV where appropriate. There seems to be some tension between Cabinet Committee autonomy and the need to join up and/or to integrate work on cross-cutting initiatives such as sustainable development. However, Cabinet Committees are largely a closed book to us because of a protocol—I was going to say mafia—of silence, so we must accept in good faith the claims made for ENV's co-ordinating role.
The second Green Ministers report contains some welcome commitments; we do not want comments to be negative. It includes a commitment that all free-standing appraisals will be published. That is an improvement, except that there is an explicit move to develop an integrated appraisal system in support of sustainable development in its broadest sense. I hope that the Government will be able to make a commitment to publish all relevant appraisals, especially when they are part of a broader agenda.

167WH
There is a welcome commitment to Departments having to screen all policy developments for their environmental implications to identify the need for fuller green study and scrutiny. I believe that that is the start of a more vigorous approach that could lead to the foundation of an environmental audit of policy, which would please the Environmental Audit Committee, if it were allowed access to the results. So far, that has been left to individual Departments, but I see no reason why it should remain an internal record.
Allied to that is an initiative by the Cabinet Office and the sustainable development unit in the DETR to scan the horizon for upcoming policies with significant environmental implications and to alert Departments to any less obvious environmental impact that is overlooked in the Cabinet Office review. We would all benefit from co-operation with the Government on that score.
The second Green Ministers report contains a long and detailed list of approaches by Departments to the screening initiative. Unfortunately, the individual parts do not add up to the bald statement that all Departments will now screen policy. That is what we need. However, the Cabinet Office has prepared a checklist. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport encourages policy makers to use a checklist. Department for International Development screening applies to projects and programmes. Department of Health guidance includes a screening tool. Policy managers in the Department of Social Security have guidance—that word again. The approach of the Department of Trade and Industry is under review.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's clearance system applies only to policies with environmental implications. What about the environment being at the heart of government and who decided that in the first place? That evades or misses the point of screening. The Permanent Secretary to the Home Office has commended the use of its policy development checklist, which includes a section on the environment, to heads of units and is considering other options. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is working on its procedures.
The Treasury, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise share a requirement that all budget proposals must be screened for environmental impact and the results included in table 6.2. As the Chairman of the Committee suggested, the table is a brief snapshot of the benefits of the Government's green tax measures. Those are welcome. However, it is disquieting that no non-environmental measure has yet made it into the table, despite the welcome and rigorous approach.
Treasury Ministers have said that that is because only those measures with quantifiable impact are included. There are, however, some environmental measures without quantification. That increases the suspicion that the table of appraisal is an environmental backwater listing green measures, and not an environmental assessment of budget as a whole. Environmental appraisal of non-environmental policies seems to have the potential to deliver the Prime Minister's commitment to make the process of government green. Appraisal must be undertaken and policies adjusted when negative impact is shown.
168WH
The Environmental Audit Committee was pleased with the DTI's publication of appraisals of the sources of power generation, the new electricity trading arrangements and the introduction of the Utilities Bill. However, we were less pleased to note that, where overall negative environmental impacts were predicted, little, if any, action resulted. In the case of the power sources review, there was merely an assertion that the Government's overall climate change targets would be met by other means. Appraisal is needed to identify where policies must be adjusted, rejigged and rethought to achieve—in a popular phrase—win-win solutions. Political will is essential to drive those changes through and deliver win-win results. The Committee will continue to seek action and I look forward to the Minister's response.
4.55 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: I echo the popular sentiment in welcoming the opportunity to debate the activities of the Environmental Audit Committee and the report on greening government. The Committee is a terrier snapping at the ankles of the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister said that we do so ferociously.
This debate may be unique because both the Government and Opposition spokesmen—the Minister for the Environment and I—are also members of the Environmental Audit Committee. Any praise that I may give the Committee must be tempered by the fact that I have been a member since its inception, so modesty forbids me from being overly zealous in my congratulations.
The Conservative party takes the Committee's work seriously. Of its four Conservative members, three have participated since its inception and all have attended the debate today. A further four founder members were from the Labour party, two of whom have contributed to the debate. We have had two Welsh nationalist members, but they represented the same constituency, which provided a degree of continuity. In contrast, we have had no fewer than three different Liberal Democrats filling that party's single place. In a spirit of partisanship, I must point out that, strangely, one of them lasted less than a week after the election of the Chairman. Attendance by the Liberal Democrats has been rare, and if one discounts the trips that we made overseas, they were even rarer.
Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughton: I shall in a minute. Perhaps the lack of contributions by Liberal Democrat members of the Committee explains why the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) spoke for so long.
Mr. Brake: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there has been a Liberal Democrat presence today and that my contribution was pertinent and helpful. He must examine the body of Liberal Democrat party policy to see what we deliver on environmental issues.
Mr. Loughton: I shall try to find some time to examine the body of Liberal Democrat proposals. The lengthy

169WH
contribution from their Front-Bench spokesman, compared with their previous contributions, reminded me of a comment by a colleague who visited a European Union Commissioner. He said that he spent half an hour having a two-minute conversation with Neil Kinnock. It is a shame that the researcher for the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington did not research one of the Environmental Audit Committee's great strengths: on most issues there was cross-party agreement due to a general interest in putting the environment first. We have never had to vote on the reports that we have produced. We have come here this afternoon in the interests of putting the environmental structures with which we are especially concerned before Parliament. It has been a remarkably non-partisan enterprise. That has been one of the strengths of the Committee, of which I am proud to have been a member for the past three and a half years.
The report that we debate today is another good report. It comes in the wake of a number of excellent reports: the two others on the greening government initiative, in 1998 and 1999; the pre-Budget reports and those on the comprehensive spending review; and the reports on the sustainability of world trade, on EU environment policy and climate change, genetically modified organisms, and water and energy efficiency. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who queried how these reports come up for debate. I am certain that the work that we have produced merits a wider airing and I concur, on behalf of the Opposition, with his sentiments that this House, at the very least, deserves an annual debate in the main Chamber on the Government's sustainable development initiative and policy. It is so important and it has featured greatly in the contributions today.
The attractions and strengths of the Select Committee are that it cuts across all the Departments of Government. It has the power to report and to seek witnesses from all of them and to recall those witnesses and re-report if their initial answers are found to be lacking. That is why Ministers have been well advised to do their homework before appearing as witnesses. In many cases, that has happened. However, as the Government have stated, it is important to have a lead from the very top on this environmental issue. That lead should influence all the Departments and the initiatives by all the different parts of Government—as the Cabinet Office put it, "wiring it up".
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who is a major contributor to the Select Committee and who made, as always, a number of interesting points, stated that the approach to environmental sustainability is still not holistic, as it desperately needs to be. She suggested that the sustainable development unit should be put into the Cabinet itself and that idea has great merit and would not be without precedent. It would help to bring environmental sustainability into the horizontal and vertical of government, as she so rightly put it, and procurement, which is a key part of that.
It is clear that we have commitment today from the Minister for the Environment. All members of the Select Committee hold him in great respect. It is always well worth turning out for his attendances as a witness and he
170WH
gives us exceedingly frank and honest answers—more so than any Minister whom we have had before us. However, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, he has never voted against any of our findings or the reports that we have produced. We can only deduce, therefore, that he agrees with everything that we have said, including the report that we are discussing. For that we thank him greatly and look forward to the Government rapidly translating our findings into action.
It is also clear that we have audible commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister, although at times that does not quite translate into action—as was the case recently with the French Environment Minister, over which we shall pass rather rapidly. What is not clear, however, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) rightly mentioned, is to what extent the project has the active support of Downing street. It is noticeable that the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, has made only one major speech on the environment and the jury is still out on his green credentials.
As we found in the Committee's three reports on greening government, progress by individual Departments is patchy to say the least. That is why the departmental progress charts that we produce in the reports are so important. They are rather difficult to work out, but all the facts are there if one reads the instructions. The hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned the different responses to screening among different Departments and different initiatives.
The naming and shaming of the worst offending Departments has been a major weapon, which the Committee has used with notable success. I cite one example that I remember well, which was when we questioned senior civil servants from the Prison Service a while ago. They were baffled, to say the least, by our inquiries about what role environmental considerations played in their day-to-day operations. They thought us rather impertinent, but I gather that they went away and were made to think about what had been put in front of them. The question was largely one of communication. The subject had never really dawned on them, but I gather that some progress has been made as a result in the Prison Service, in which many environmental considerations can be promoted.
It is perhaps a shame that the Home Office as a whole still rather lags behind other Departments, according to our tables. In contrast, as our report shows, only the Department for Education and Employment is explicitly committed to the systematic publication of its results of screening and of the appraisal of the environmental impact of its policy proposals. Many Departments could do a lot worse than take a leaf out of its book.
As a contrast, the Department of Health is one of the worst offenders, yet it is the biggest employer in the country, one of the biggest operators of buildings—all of which need to be lit, heated and maintained—one of the biggest purchasers of equipment and supplies and one of the biggest producers of waste, both inert and toxic. It lags behind many Departments which could be construed as less close to the aim of putting environmental considerations into practice.
Even the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is slightly lacking. It is perhaps surprising that its performance is barely above average

171WH
on many of the Committee's performance indicators. No doubt the Minister will want to say something about that. There is no excuse for it. We were initially promised that the Green Ministers Committee, about which we have heard much, was the antidote to any lack of communication and would aid the dissemination of best environmental practice among Departments. As we have heard, the Committee had a shaky start. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) mentioned, it rarely met to start with and civil servants substituted for Ministers.
The Committee has started to raise its profile and its meetings have become more frequent. However, if it is really to work, there must be much greater transparency in the publishing of its minutes, a full list of the policies for which environmental appraisals have been undertaken and properly comparable and auditable performance targets. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) mentioned that our report was critical of the transparency of details of the Committee's interaction with the "ENV" Committee, which must also be improved.
The Government also need to lead by example. The hon. Member for Bury, North told us that the Government could do dramatically more on renewable energy. We need to have a greater handle on the involvement with public-private partnerships and public finance initiatives, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned. Much can be done on procurement. I hope that something meaningful will arise from the recent procurement systems review.
Regional development agencies were mentioned. In one of our noticeable interviews with the Deputy Prime Minister, we questioned him on their role and their environmental instructions, credentials and criteria. He had to admit that the RDAs were specifically and primarily for economic development and that the environmental credentials featured low down the ladder. Given that the Government regard the RDAs as increasingly important agents, a progress report from the Minister on them would be helpful.
It might be useful if the Government took up the challenge that they set to business. They requested that 75 per cent. of FT 100 companies have at least one site registered to ISO 14,001 standards by 2001. Departments are in a position to take a lead on such matters and by doing so would reinforce the seriousness of their case when dealing with the wider world, particularly the business world. As with so much else, however, government is not only about setting targets, announcing reviews, setting up inquiries and establishing more targets, however elaborate. We have heard much today about establishing targets, but that does not solve the problem unless meaningful action results from all that other paraphernalia.
As far as the Committee is concerned, the Treasury is a specific problem and the cause of many of the hurdles and barriers against which we have had to operate. To all intents and purposes, as we found during our deliberations, the Treasury acts as a major constraint on the environmentalism that other Departments would like to exercise. We requested the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Paymaster General, to attend the Committee, but, for the sake of a better word, we were given the bum's rush—by the look in your eyes, Mrs. Adams, I think that I might have got
172WH
away with that expression. The Economic Secretary attended the Committee reluctantly and belatedly. She promised initially that a green environmental Budget appraisal would be produced with each Budget, but that was subsequently downgraded to a couple of sheets in the Budget report, which was disappointing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, the Chairman of the Select Committee, mentioned the performance of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a widely respected Minister, who has attended our Committee several times. However, he was completely at sea when questioned on the fuel duty escalator, and when pressed he had to admit that the Government had made no assessment of its environmental impact. Worse still, if achieving a gain on carbon emissions was its objective, the Treasury had not properly assessed the environmental effects of alternatives. The reasons for the fuel duty escalator were not clear and we did not know whether the Government believed that it might continue to be a useful instrument when congestion and the growth of car use continued apace.
There was a clear division in thinking on regeneration measures when the Treasury was challenged on the usefulness of the Chancellor's announcement on using stamp duty exemptions in regeneration areas. We were not sure whether they were intended to benefit businesses and attract them to deprived areas, or to help residential property owners. We were given two very different answers—an oral answer from the Financial Secretary and a written answer from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. There is a lack of joined-up thinking between the Treasury and certain other Departments.
It is a shame that the Treasury does not seem to have grasped the fact that there is a long-term payback for many environmental measures. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said that the comprehensive spending review was a classic example. When the review was introduced, the Chancellor billed it as a device to ensure that Departments would not automatically receive year-on-year rises because they would have to prove that they were putting the money to good use.
The Government are keen to promote various performance target grants for local authorities. Whether or not one agrees, one wants to see an end result. The comprehensive spending review would allow environmental matters to be considered when making departmental revenue allocations and the Departments would have to report on their environmental sustainability achievements each year, just as they have to report on whether the money has been put to good use—for instance, producing better exam results, smaller class sizes or more hospital operations. That is a missed trick. I fear that the Treasury has not been the biggest fan of the Environmental Audit Committee, and I suppose that it will continue not to be its biggest fan because we will not hold back from the course of scrutiny that we have undertaken.
We are trying to establish improvement throughout Government. There is no excuse now, because many of the structures that the Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned are in place. However, we are still not convinced that this so-called joined-up government is leading to a sufficient grasp of the over-reaching nature of environmental and sustainable development issues. The Committee, quite rightly, wants those issues

173WH
to be tackled as a matter of course, as part of the day-to-day culture of government. It should be made clear where it is all leading to and how we are going to get there. The Government have been better at responding to the big environmental issues, such as climate change and the effects of flooding, but everyday matters, which are the building blocks of sustainability, do not get the same airing.
I shall refer to some of the Committee's main gripes and highlight some issues on which we want a more positive response from the Government. One such issue is that of an annual debate on environmental sustainability, which is an easy matter to resolve. The Government have merely expressed sympathy with the Committee's suggested targets for the establishment of an accredited environmental management system and with our long-held ideas for a green tax commission that is independent of other constraints on the Treasury. We also want to deal with the audit gap, and inaugurate an independent approach backed by the National Audit Office, as we found in Canada on one of our trips there. As hon. Members have said, that is only fulfilling the other side of the pledge that the Labour party made before the election.
On behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee, I would like to say that good work has been done, and good structures, particularly on performance and reporting, have been put in place. We have received many warm words from Ministers who have appeared before the Committee. However, there is much more to do. Therefore, although we are encouraged by what we hear, we are disappointed by what we see in practice and hope that the Minister will encourage all his colleagues to speed up the process of greening government, which we all hold so dear.
5.17 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I enjoyed listening to the debate. The debates in Westminster Hall, about which I initially had some reservations, are really rather good. They are certainly not riven with party-political rancour—at least not those that I have attended. They are sensible, thoughtful discussions, and today's was a prime example of that.
Perhaps that is also because the subject of the debate has been the Environmental Audit Committee. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who chairs the Committee, introduced the debate in his characteristically fair-minded manner, and raised several issues, as did all the other members of the Committee. I am in a unusual position. Normally, I am constrained by the fact that I have about an hour's worth of things to say and 10 minutes in which to say them. I am not implying that I intend to continue until 6 o'clock, but I am not constrained in the normal way. I will, for once, try—briefly—to answer the points that have been raised.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his compliment to me at the start of his speech. I am glad that he also referred to the impressive work of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions team. That is entirely fair and I am glad that some of that team were present to hear it. They will also read it—I am glad that he put it on the record.
174WH
The Environmental Audit Committee, as much as any other Select Committee of which I have experience, has made an impressive contribution to influencing Government policy. It has had a big impact on us. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) may be unsatisfied because the impact is still not complete but, despite all that that we have done, there are some aims to which we are only sympathetic. We have done a great deal of what the Committee wanted. We were right to do so, and the relationship with the Committee is, on our side, positive.
The Committee was set up as a terrier to bite our ankles. It has carried out that remit effectively. I am sorry that reference was made to starting off with a photocall. I see nothing wrong with that, but, as the hon. Member for Orpington who made the comment realises, those who live in glass houses—or perhaps I should say greenhouses—should not throw stones.
The hon. Gentleman made several points. He referred, first, to the number of meetings of Green Ministers. The greening of government—persuading other Departments to think environmentally—does not depend simply, thank goodness, on Cabinet Sub-Committee meetings. It is a far more subtle and pervasive process relating to issues that cannot be resolved or issues that are still outstanding on which one needs a face-to-face exchange, and that is why meetings are required. Therefore, one cannot judge the Government by the number of meetings; it is by outcomes, as many hon. Members said later.
The hon. Gentleman also stated that there were six official meetings. I believe that that is a good thing. Not just Green Ministers are concerned. If we do not infuse senior officers in each of our Departments with a commitment—they are full-time professionals dealing with these areas—we shall not have the impact that we want. We recently set up a new structure. I had a meeting with very senior officials—grades 2 and 3—from many Departments and we have established a network of senior officials leading on sustainable development in their own Departments. I agree that the outcome must be witnessed and monitored. We will see whether it makes a difference. I believe that that is very important.
Environmental appraisals are key. I would be the first to say that integrated appraisal still needs to be developed. Integrated appraisals that look not just at the environmental impact but at the social and economic impact are important. They are not easy to do, but it is the right concept. However, it is not fully developed. Some Departments are a great deal better than others. As several hon. Members said, there is a clear requirement on Departments to screen new policies for environmental impact. I get at them, if they fail to do so, at the Ministers meeting. I look to the members of the Select Committee to get at them publicly to hold them to account. It is important that they should do so; that is the relationship between us.
We all know that the environmental impact of some policies is negligible but, where it may be significant, Departments must carry out a full environmental appraisal. That is clear Government policy. I underline that. Other than in exceptional circumstances, such as where confidentiality considerations arise, all freestanding environmental appraisals will be published.

175WH
The hon. Member for Orpington and several other hon. Members referred to the fuel duty escalator policy. We inherited that policy from the previous Government. We supported it and thought that it was right. We were not in at the start of the policy, and so it would have looked odd to have had an environmental appraisal on a policy already in play that we had inherited from a previous Government, but we looked at the environmental impact and we have repeatedly said in our climate change programme that it is responsible by 2010 for saving 2.5 million to 4.5 million tonnes of carbon a year.
The rise in the international price of oil through the pressure of Oil Producing and Exporting Countries has dramatically pushed up the price at the pump by two or three times more than the fuel duty escalator would ever have done. Other forces are having the same effect. That is why we do not need to rely on that policy, nor will we in the foreseeable future.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the greener fuel challenge. That is not confined to existing infrastructures, as he suggested. The Treasury has said that it will consider appropriate fiscal support measures if industry or voluntary or community groups can present viable practical proposals, and we look forward to receiving those submissions.
Mr. Horam: In considering what emerges under the greener fuel challenge, does the Treasury intend to support more than one outcome?
Mr. Meacher: It is certainly not confined to a single submission—one or a number may be supported. I see no reason why there should not be more than one.
On targets, I was surprised by the chiding of the hon. Gentleman. I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who quoted the figure of 429 and said that thousands have been set across government. I am not aware of those figures, although there are certainly a heck of lot.
The hon. Member for Orpington said that we will not know the precise results of the Government's energy targets for another two years. According to my information, he is correct in stating that the target is a 20 per cent. reduction in consumption over 1990–91 levels by March 2000. As we have already said, nearly 19 per cent. had been achieved by March 1999. I cannot advance the figures beyond that point, but we have clearly almost reached, if not exceeded, the target.
I shall not bore the Committee by going through the whole list of targets for waste. There is a target for the recovery of 40 per cent. of office waste by 2000–01. On travel, all key buildings were to have travel plans in place by March 2000. In fact—this has not received publicity, but it is worthy of it—743 travel plans covering more than 1,100 sites had been introduced by autumn 2000, just after the target date. All Departments were expected to have begun introducing an environmental management system by the end of this Parliament. In fact, nine Departments already have an EMS certified to ISO 1401 and others are developing systems.
There are plenty of targets, and the evidence shows that we have made a great deal of progress in meeting nearly all of them. Even where no cross-Government target is set, that does not mean that Departments are
176WH
not taking action. The best example of that is renewable energy, for which there is no target, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)—or perhaps it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)—pointed out. Nevertheless, over the past year, nine Departments started purchasing it. The Department of Social Security employs renewable sources of energy at 31 sites, which is equivalent to 15 per cent. of its total consumption. In the case of the DTI, more than a quarter of its headquarters' consumption comes from renewable energy. Those examples represent a commendable, significant and robust achievement of targets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) always makes extremely well prepared and relevant points that get me racking my brains, and she always, justifiably, presses me to go that much further. Several hon. Members asked whether, if sustainability is at the heart of government, the sustainable development unit should be located in the Cabinet Office. I understand the argument for mainstreaming it like some of the other cross-cutting units and I am not saying that the Government will not or should not look further at that, but one of the objections of the Committee was precisely the fact that the environmental dimension of sustainable development tends to be squeezed out. We remain dominated by economics and to some extent increasingly by social targets, but the environment is a bit marginalised. For that reason, there is some benefit in retaining it in a big, powerful Department that has the capacity to keep pressing. However, I hear the argument and understand the reasons behind it.
On the full review of the parliamentary estate, my hon. Friend mentioned heating in particular. I have talked about energy. Up to now, we have an on-going 1 per cent. improvement target. The Buying Agency's watermark project has the potential drastically to reduce the current £600 million public sector water and sewerage bill. I have mentioned the large number of existing travel plans. Eight Departments have also moved to paying single motor mileage rates, irrespective of engine capacity, to discourage the use of large vehicles. In other words, that assessment across the parliamentary estate is—this always sounds bad in Whitehall—under review. It is being looked at year on year and reported annually in the Green Ministers' report.
My hon. Friend also mentioned procurement and in particular the question of timber. That is, of course, a vital part of the Government's environmental impact—the footprint—and we have strengthened our efforts to ensure that the timber that we buy is from sustainable and legally logged sources. My hon. Friend correctly referred to my statement earlier last year about that. As she said, Departments are no longer encouraged to buy sustainable timber—they are now required to do so and can be held to that if there is any evidence that they have not done so. I should want an explanation as, I hope, would this Committee.
One learns in government, that many targets prove to be much more difficult to deliver. For example, the agreement made at Okinawa on timber is a complex issue involving establishment of the chain of custody and deciding which independent verification schemes are appropriate—there are several options at present.

177WH
There is a lack of verified timber and everywhere is awash with unverified timber. The interdepartmental group has been examining all these issues. We have met the WWF, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the timber trade groups. We are trying to learn lessons from the best private practice and we are in discussions with, for example, B&Q. The Government are doing much to try to deliver the targets.
Ms Walley: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on that point? Is he satisfied that there is no inconsistency with the way in which he is now progressing on that policy in respect of European directives and Treasury guidance that predetermines the procurement process? If not, will he provide further references so that the Committee can investigate further and keep pressing?
Mr. Meacher: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. Of course, when I refer to the sustainable policies that DETR is pursuing, these apply across the Government as a whole. They have to be sanctioned by the Treasury. It is not the case that the Treasury is concerned only with value for money and that dear old DETR goes out on a limb looking at sustainability. We do not get an agreement to a policy unless the Treasury accepts it. In practice, there is no conflict. The Treasury has accepted that, and we wish to see it fully carried through.
My hon. Friend referred, as did one or two other hon. Members, to depleted uranium. I mention that with some trepidation. If I say that it is a controversial issue that has blown up recently, that is perhaps not the right metaphor. It has, of course, only just become an issue. The spread of radioactive dust around tanks that have been destroyed is being looked at carefully and lessons will no doubt be drawn from that. A colleague on the Environment Council, Peka Havisto, who is the Finnish Minister, visited Kosovo shortly after the end of the conflict—I believe that he has now returned there—and produced a report on precisely that issue. That is undoubtedly a good example of the need for the long-term environmental consequences to be taken fully into account.
On global warming, I hope that I can satisfy my hon. Friend that we have put in place delivery mechanisms— that is what the climate change programme is all about. Each delivery mechanism is quantified and detailed. I understand the arguments relating to VAT on brownfield developments, given our policy of 60 per cent. build on brownfield. I take note of them, and so will my colleagues in the Treasury. However, that is of course a matter for them.
I shall abstain from the cross-party bickering that took place a little earlier—at one point, I thought that the election had already begun in the south of England—but I shall deal with the matters to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred. I have already answered his point about targets, but he is right to say that there are an awful lot of them. We have set ourselves specific, quantifiable objectives and time scales within which to achieve those targets, even though
178WH
they are a rod to our own backs. I am not sure whether they apply to all 429 targets, but they certainly apply to the main ones.
Mr. Brake: Is there a prioritisation process? Will targets be continually removed when they seem no longer applicable?
Mr. Meacher: There certainly is prioritisation. In terms of environmental impact, we are fundamentally concerned about the key issues of climate change, CO2 energy efficiency, waste management, water conservation and the effect on travel, but there is a whole range of other issues. We inherited from the previous Government 150 environmental targets, and although I do not complain about that, it is important to establish headline indicators, because they prioritise the attention of the nation. The intention is to enable people to understand, albeit in a fairly limited way, whether the nation is going in the right direction in environmental terms.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned sustainable energy and renewables. That is unquestionably a major priority, but I would argue that the policies and targets are in place. Electricity suppliers will be obliged to provide at least 10 per cent. of their output from renewable sources by 2010. It is of course true that we need significantly to exceed the 10 per cent. figure by 2010, if not before.
We have also put in place the necessary mechanisms. In respect of industrial energy efficiency, there are powerful drivers: the climate change levy, and exemption from it for renewables and good quality combined heat and power. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of 2 per cent., although I believe that it is actually 2.6 per cent. It is certainly true that there is a long way to go, but those drivers are being put in place. In terms of the green fuels challenge, there will be major increases in onshore and offshore wind, biomass, biofuels and biodiesel.
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on incineration. As a Minister, one always learns new things in debates such as this. I thought that I knew the House reasonably well, but I did not know that paper from this place is incinerated. I find that rather alarming. All that I can say is that, if the authorities in the House use Westminster council, I understand that it does incinerate. I shall speak to them in the light of the debate because I think that there are better ways of handling the matter. It is between the parliamentary body corporate and the local council, but I understand that Departments in Whitehall use alternative contractors for waste. Nevertheless, I shall look into it further.
On the question of composting, the last point raised by the hon. Gentleman, we certainly can and should increase composting in local authority recycling re-use recovery. However, we have to agree with the European Union what constitutes an adequate and proper composting standard. Something like 200,000 to 300,000 tonnes a year is probably composted by private households, but that does not count because it is not taken to a public place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who always makes an excellent contribution, was concerned about Select Committee reports being chosen for

179WH
debates. That is a matter for the Committee rather than me. I have great sympathy with the request for a major debate in the House of Commons on sustainable development. Of course, it means getting the agreement of Government collectively on priorities. I can put in a bid or the Deputy Prime Minister can make a request, but the matter has to be collectively decided. However, if the House makes the experimental sittings in Westminster Hall permanent, the Government would be happy in principle for an annual debate to be held here. I understand the reasons for wanting such a debate to take place on the Floor of the House—that would be better. I will take the matter on board and raise it again with the Leader of the House. I do not wish to be too chummy with the Committee, but the Environmental Audit Committee—inspired debate is itself a helpful vehicle for discussion of environmental issues, as was its predecessor in March 1999.
On the issue of appraisals being made known at an earlier stage, my hon. Friend referred to paragraph 34 in the Government's response. As he correctly stated, we say that it is not possible for the sustainable development unit to provide this information. It is standard practice that details of Cabinet Committee meetings, including the issues that they discuss, should not be disclosed. That has always been the tradition of government, but he did not say—it is an important point—that the Committee is free to ask for an explanation of the handling of any policy that it selects. The sustainable development unit will be notifying Departments where it believes that new policies may have significant environmental implications. The last thing that I want to do is to block access to these appraisals—it is a question of the manner in which they are obtained. We do not believe that it can be automatic, but if they are requested, they will be made available.
A number of hon. Members raised an interesting point made in the Committee with regard to an environmental auditor-general being established within the NAO, mirroring the arrangements for performance audit of public spending. The Government received the Committee's report only last week, and there are widespread implications that must considered. I cannot therefore give an answer today. I have a great deal of sympathy with the suggestion and understand the reasons behind it. We will examine it closely and give a response over the next weeks.
On renewable energy, my hon. Friend suggested that the Government could meet its 10 per cent. target by Government procurement alone, getting all its electricity from renewable sources. Theoretically, that is a nice idea, but Departments would more than consume the entire present supply of renewable energy if we bought nothing but renewable energy immediately. The only practical way is to plan the move to a cross-government target for stepped purchase. We would certainly signal that intention to the suppliers, and Green Ministers would want to make that move this year. We shall report further on that. We shall play our part, but it would be unwise, and probably impractical, to do so ourselves.
I think that I have replied to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, whom I am also glad to see here, about the National Audit Office.
180WH
A question was raised about Green Ministers and the leadership issue. I understand that concern. There is a feeling that Green Ministers are fine, but it is not a Cabinet body, they are not Cabinet Ministers, nor do they have thrust and punch in government. As I have said, Green Ministers report twice a year to ENV, the Cabinet Committee on the Environment, which is intended to provide strategic oversight of the whole process. The idea of Green Ministers, which again we inherited from the previous Government, has been revitalised under the Government and made more transparent through annual reports that go into considerable detail. We have established a network of senior officials from each Department, from which I expect valuable results.
My hon. Friend mentioned wider environmental monitoring. First, as he said, associated bodies—non-departmental public bodies—are required to report on their environmental performance, and the Cabinet Office's guidance for NDPBs has recently been amended to require just that. Of course it applies to other bodies and to companies, not just to Government. We are putting a great deal of pressure on companies to increase their reporting on priority environmental targets. That would apply to something like Ilisu dam, which I do not want to discuss in more detail today. Those who are making an application would be expected to produce an environmental impact statement, which would be carefully examined. It would also apply to local authorities. Waste strategy, water use, building regulations and energy efficiency are all covered by a range of statutory regulation. The Government are also looking to bodies outside government to respond in the same way.
I realise that time is moving on. I want to respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and thank her for all the effort that she so regularly makes in this area. She asked for the sustainable development unit to scan the horizon with regard to upcoming policies. As I have said, all Departments should screen their policies in an environmental impact statement. They are already required to do so. I repeat that I look for assistance not just of DETR Ministers but other Ministers who equally have these environmental responsibilities. All Budget proposals should have an environmental impact statement, which should apply to all non-environmental policies, as long as there is a significant environmental impact. It would be perverse and bizarre to impose it automatically in every case.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised several points in a fair-minded way. I think that I have responded to his point about the debate in the main Chamber. At the end of his remarks, he said that he wanted a more positive response on the green tax commission. I realise that that again is a serious and thoughtful proposal, which the Government need to think about further. The Chancellor's shift to a pre-Budget report goes some way in that direction. By announcing his intentions for the Budget several months ahead, he allows consideration and debate of not only the environmental impact, but of the financial and other economic aspects. I accept that the green tax commission goes further and I take on board the request to consider that.

181WH
I should respond to something that is often said about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am continually embarrassed to receive plaudits for my environmental commitment, as I am sure are all members of the Committee, but the Prime Minister is not included. That is unfair. It is not true that he has made only one speech on the matter. He made a major speech at the Rio plus five conference, and many people said that it was the best speech of the conference, but that is another matter. He made a comprehensive speech a couple of months ago and he may make other speeches in the near future. He is the only head of state who has announced that he will attend Rio plus 10. The point is not whether he is doing something environmental or attending an environmental photocall, however desirable that may be, but that he heads a Government who are committed to an environmental agenda, which includes setting up ENV, the Environmental Audit Committee and the sustainable development commission, which has a chairman who immediately criticised him. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for those policies, and if I have done anything valuable in this area, it is because I have had support from not only the Deputy Prime Minister but the Prime Minister, and it is fair to recognise that.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham wanted a full list of environmental appraisals and auditable targets. I have responded to that and given a commitment. I want the Committee to have the environmental appraisals that it seeks and I shall do my best to ensure that, if the Committee wants them, it shall have them. Auditable targets exist aplenty, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington recognised.
Section 4 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 requires sustainable development to pervade all the policies of such agencies. I agree that they should be held
182WH
to account on whether they actually carry that through to ensure that it is not just lip service, but that statutory commitment already exists.
We have said that 75 per cent. of the top FTSE companies should have at least one department with an audited environmental management system, but what about the Government? We require the same of ourselves. Nine Departments have EMSs accredited to the international standard ISO 14,001 and nine others are actively seeking that benchmark. To help Departments, we have established an EMS practitioners group to share expertise. We have held two major seminars with several hundred people present on both occasions. We have produced a guide. We have established a call-off contract which allows Departments pre-arranged consultancy advice on implementing EMSs. We are vigorously suggesting to industry measures that we are trying to implement in government.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that the Budget environmental appraisal was confined to a couple of paragraphs, but perhaps I misunderstood him. That was the case originally, but perhaps he has not read the latest Red Book, which includes a significant section on environmental impact.
The hon. Gentleman made the fair point that the comprehensive spending review provides an opportunity to establish integrated, value-for-public-expenditure environmental objectives, but that is exactly the purpose of public service agreements. They include environmental targets and are not concerned just with value for money.
I apologise for the length of my comments. I thank the Committee for its admirable work and the hon. Member for Orpington, who chairs it and is doing an excellent job. I hope that he will continue to do so long after the event that may be coining and I look forward to working closely with the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Six o 'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Tidal Data
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the accuracy of the information available from the Ordnance Survey on the mean high water springs tide-contour around Britain's coastline. [144942]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Ordnance Survey tide lines have been surveyed at the basic scale of survey in the region and may have been surveyed at 1:1250, 1:2500 or 1:10000 scale using photogrammetric or ground survey methods. Interpolation between tide gauges around the coast is used to obtain the tidal heights and/or tide times depending on survey method along intervening stretches of coastline.

  In England and Wales, mean high water is the high water mark of an ordinary or average tide. In Scotland, mean high water springs is used and is the high water mark of an average spring tide. Mean high water heights for example can vary along the coast from a minimum of 0.09 meters to a maximum of 5.62 meters above Newlyn Datum. Ordnance Survey uses the Admiralty Tide Tables as the source of tidal height.

  For an area with 5 meter contour intervals. The vertical accuracy of the tide line equates to ±1.25m. The horizontal accuracy of the tide line depends upon the slope of the coastline.

  Locally Listed Buildings
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the policy of his Department is towards the establishment of lists of buildings of local historical interest by local authorities. [145751]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 "Planning and the Historic Environment"—which is published jointly by my Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—advises that it is open to local planning authorities to draw up lists of locally important buildings. Although such lists do not have the status of the statutory ones, planning authorities can formulate appropriate development plan policies for the protection of buildings on them, through normal development control procedures.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department will make available to parish councils further copies of the summary on the White Paper on rural England. [145408]
  292W
  Mr. Mullin
  The Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the Clerks of parish councils in England in December 2000, enclosing a copy of the full text of the Rural White Paper. This letter also gave information on how to obtain further copies of the free White Paper summary.

  Copies of the White Paper summary are available from the DETR free literature centre in Wetherby.

  Mobile Telecommunications
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish a response to the Stewart report on mobile telecommunications. [145367]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government published their response to the Stewart Report on 11 May 2000.

  A consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to telecommunications masts and associated guidance ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We shall announce any changes as soon as practicable.

  Energy Efficiency
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when consultations on the energy efficiency section of the building regulations began; when the closing date for responses was set; and what the expected implementation date of the new or revised regulations will be in England and Wales. [145432]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Consultations on proposals for amendments to the energy efficiency provisions in the building regulations began when they were published on 15 June last year, and the closing date for responses was 29 September. The proposals are now being reconsidered by officials in my Department in conjunction with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee in the light of the excellent and extensive response. I expect to be able to make the first stage amendments in the summer, and to bring these into force some six months later.

  Height Restrictions
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to local authorities on height restrictions on new developments adjacent to existing properties. [145531]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Where new development requires a planning application, it is for the local planning authority to decide it, having regard to the development plan for the area. The Department's Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 says that development plans should contain appropriate and straightforward policies on design, including the relationship of development to neighbouring properties. "By Design", published by the Department and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, emphasises the importance of consideration by local planning authorities of height and massing in relation to adjoining buildings.
  293W
  Permitted development rights granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 mean that certain extensions to buildings, and new buildings in gardens, do not require a planning application.

  Waste Incineration (Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many waste incinerator sites have been identified in the County of Essex; where they are located; and what steps he plans to take to amend his policy on waste to take account of Essex County Council's amendment to the draft Waste Local Plan. [145846]

  Mr. Mullin
  The draft Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan identifies eight sites for major waste management facilities but does not prescribe what type of facility should be provided at each one. The sites are Rivenhall Airfield, Silver End; Land east of Warren Lane, Stanway; Whitehall Road, Colchester; North Weald Airfield, North Weald Bassett, Epping Forest; Courtauld Road, Basildon; Pitsea Landfill site, Basildon; Rayleigh sub-station, A129/A130, Rayleigh; and Sandon, Chelmsford.

  Number of households defined as fuel poor in England in 19961 (Million)

  Fuel poor households as a percentage of all households in England2

  (a) Income including Housing Benefit and Income Support for mortgage interest

  4.3

  22

  (b) Income excluding Housing Benefit and Income Support for mortgage interest

  5.3

  27

  (c) Income excluding housing expenditure

  6.8

  35

  1 Assumes fuel costs include those for non-heating purposes.

  2 Total number of households in England in 1996 was 19.6 million.

  As would be expected, when housing expenditure is excluded from household income, the overall household income decreases and hence the number of households defined as fuel poor rises.

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

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what he estimates to be the reduction in numbers of fuel-poor households since 1996 and the amount of reduction attributed to(a) improved energy efficiency, (b) reduced fuel prices and (c) increased household income. [145764]

  Mr. Meacher
  Using data from the 1996 English House Condition Survey (EHCS), it was estimated that in 1996 there were either 4.3 million or 5.3 million households in fuel poverty using the definitions at(a) and (b) respectively.

  (a) If, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of all income (including Housing Benefit and Income Support for Mortgage Interest) on all household fuel use.

  (b) If, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (excluding Housing Benefit and Income Support for Mortgage Interest) on all household fuel use.

  294W
  As set out in Waste Strategy 2000 (Command 4693) published in May, the Government do not expect incineration with energy recovery to be considered before the opportunities for recycling and composting have been explored. The choice of waste facilities is a matter for local councils to take into consultation with their local communities.

  Fuel Poor Households
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many households are defined as fuel-poor on the basis of(a) income including housing benefit and mortgage interest support, (b) income excluding housing benefit and mortgage interest support and (c) income excluding housing expenditure. [145766]

  Mr. Meacher
  The common definition of a fuel poor household is one that needs to spend in excess of 10 per cent. of household income in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime. Using data from the latest English House Condition Survey, the table shows the effect of different options for calculating household income on the number of households defined as fuel poor in 1996.

  Since the last EHCS there have been a number of significant Government policy developments that have moved households away from fuel poverty. These include:
  increases in household income due to the introduction of Working Families Tax Credit, the minimum wage and other changes to the benefit and tax systems; and
  reduced fuel prices resulting from the lowering of VAT on fuel, effective regulation and the liberalisation of the fuel supply market.

  Provisional estimates suggest that the number of fuel poor households fell by nearly 1 million between 1996 and 1999 under both definitions, due to reductions in energy prices and improved incomes. Data were not available to estimate the effect of improvements made to the energy efficiency of homes during the period, nor for changes in the composition or economic activity of households. However, it is likely that the significant drop in the number of unemployed over this period will also have reduced the number of fuel poor.

  Analysis of the components of the reduction in the number of fuel poor households indicates that:
  a fall of around 0.7 million could be attributed to the reduction in household energy bills from energy price changes alone;
  If energy prices had been assumed to be unchanged, then income improvements alone are estimated as taking some 0.4 million households out of fuel poverty.
  295W
  About 0.1 million households would have been moved out of fuel poverty by either change.

  A follow-up study to the 1996 EHCS was carried out in 1998. Data from the study are in the process of being prepared and the first analysis should be complete during 2001. This should help to confirm the accuracy of the 1999 estimates. The next full EHCS will be carried out in 2001.

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

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to local planning authorities on sustainable development; and if he will make a statement. [145999]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Sustainable development is the heart of the planning system. Relevant guidance is given to local planning authorities in a number of planning policy guidance notes including PPG1: "General Policy and Principles" (paras 4–7), PPG3: "Housing" (see paragraph 1) and PPG12: "Development Plans" (Chapter 4). Practical advice on how to incorporate sustainable development principles into development plan preparation was given in "Planning for Sustainable Development: towards better practice" (ISBN 0-11-753406-4). Regional Planning Guidance is subject to sustainability appraisal and guidance was issued in October 2000 on good practice in the preparation of such appraisals (ISBN 0-11-753568-0). We shall shortly be re-consulting on a revision to the consultation draft of PPG25: "Development and Flood Risk which emphasises sustainable solutions to managing risk from flooding".

  Air Quality (Yeovil)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on air quality within the Yeovil constituency. [144609]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Yeovil constituency is covered by South Somerset District Council, which is reviewing and assessing the current, and likely future, air quality in its area, as required under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995.

  South Somerset District Council, Mendip District Council, Taunton Deane Borough Council and West Somerset District Council, submitted a preliminary air quality review and assessment report to my Department in February 1999. South Somerset produced its own further report in June 2000 and the Council is currently working on its final review and assessment report, but has regrettably missed the deadline of end December 2000. My officials will be meeting with representatives from South Somerset later this month to discuss their progress so far and to agree a formal timetable for submitting the final stages of the Council's review and assessment work.

  South Somerset does not currently anticipate any exceedences of the national air quality objectives in respect of benzene; 1,3-butadiene; carbon monoxide; lead; sulphur dioxide; and particles (PM10) in its area. None of
  296W
  the industrial processes in and around Yeovil constituency has been identified as a major source of concern. South Somerset has, however, indicated within its reports that an area of Yeovil (near the major roads A30 and A37) has been identified as having potentially significant levels of nitrogen oxides. This is being investigated further, in order to assess whether or not an air quality management area needs to be declared in the vicinity of these major roads.

  There is no automatic monitoring site on our national network within the Yeovil constituency. A mobile laboratory has been used for short periods by South Somerset District Council to monitor NO2 and PM10 levels in Yeovil, and some basic monitoring of NO2 has also been carried out with diffusion tubes. South Somerset has recently secured a Supplementary Credit Approval of £39k from my Department for a new continuous monitor which I understand will be situated in the grounds of Yeovil District Hospital near the A37, A30 hospital roundabout, which is believed to be the worst pollution hotspot in Yeovil. The monitor will be measuring NO2 and PM10 concentrations.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications he has called in each of the last five years on which a tribunal has sat. [146080]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The number of planning applications called in each year for the last five years are:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  144

  1996–97

  139

  1997–98

  147

  1997–98

  138

  1999–2000

  136

  All called in planning applications are considered by a Planning Inspector who, since the Franks Report, has traditionally been regarded as a one-person tribunal.

  MOX Plant (Sellafield)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision regarding the authorisation of the mixed-oxide fuel plant at Sellafield. [146043]

  Mr. Meacher
  A decision regarding the authorisation of the plant will only be announced when the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Health have considered all the relevant information, including the revised economic case received in my Department on 5 January.

  Helicopters
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many helicopters have been ditched in waters surrounding the United Kingdom in the last three years; where the ditchings occurred; how many(a) lives were lost and (b) helicopters were recovered; and if he will make a statement. [144503]
  297W
  Mr. Mullin
  The Civil Aviation Authority's records show that only one civil helicopter has ditched into the waters surrounding the United Kingdom in the last three years. This incident occurred near Lyme Regis in foggy conditions. The helicopter was destroyed but both occupants were rescued.

  During the same period the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (DARA) has records of two military helicopters ditching in UK waters, one in the North Sea off the Norfolk Coast and the other in the area of the Kyle of Lochalsh. There were no fatalities in either case. It is believed that both helicopters were at least in part recovered, although DARA do not hold records of the recovery operations themselves.

  Park Homes Working Party
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what legislative and regulatory proposals have resulted from the work of the Park Homes Working Party; and if he will make a statement. [146263]

  Mr. Mullin
  The recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party covered a broad range of issues and included proposals for changes to the legislation applying to park homes. We have consulted on, and are considering, the Working Party's recommendations.

  Heathrow
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what health impact assessment(a) has been carried out and (b) will be carried out for those living by Heathrow Airport. [145948]

  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. During the Inquiry the Inspector heard and received evidence on a wide range of issues including the potential impact on health.

  Heritage Notification Arrangements
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in reviewing the current heritage notification arrangements in London. [146447]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Following a consultation exercise last year, we are publishing today a joint circular with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport setting out new arrangements to simplify the handling of listed building consent applications in London. The new arrangements will reduce significantly the number of applications which will need to be notified to English Heritage and to the Government Office for London, to reflect the growing experience of the London boroughs in these matters. This will enable decisions to be issued more quickly.

  The circular also gives guidance on an Order transferring to English Heritage certain responsibilities from the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

  Woodland
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what external advice he is taking in respect of his plans to extend the level of woodland cover in England. [145439]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Forestry Strategy for England sets out our priorities for creating new woodlands. Our key target areas are the creation of larger woodlands, where they can bring greater benefits; the creation of woodlands in the urban fringe; the restoration of former industrial land; and reversing the fragmentation of ancient woodland. I chair the England Forestry Forum which I set up to help implement the strategy. The forum is made up of a wide range of bodies who have a significant interest in forestry in England and advise me on how best to deliver the aims of the strategy.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium has been a component of munitions used on(a) Salisbury Plain training area, (b) Porton Down, (c) Lulworth ranges and (b) Shoeburyness. [145945]

  Mr. Spellar
  No munitions containing Depleted Uranium (DU) have ever been fired on Salisbury Plain Training Area, Porton Down or Lulworth Ranges. In respect to Foulness, which is now part of the DERA Shoeburyness site, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 15 January 2001,Official Report, columns 42–43W, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the porpose was of the testing of depleted uranium shells at Dundrennan, Kirkudbrightshire, in 1999–2000. [145927]

  Mr. Spellar
  The only ammunition with depleted uranium tested at Dundrennan, Kirkudbrightshire, in 1999–2000 was the 120mm anti-armour round Challenger Armament 3 (CHARM 3) for Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank. The test-firing was part of the proofing regime for production rounds which will be complete by September 2001.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many depleted uranium shells were fired at his Department's base at Dundrennan, Kirkcudbrightshire in 1999–2000; and how many have so far been fired in the current year. [145928]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the calendar years 1999 and 2000, a total of 411 depleted uranium shells were fired at the Army's Dundrennan range. No rounds have been fired, so far, during the current year.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the risk assessments undertaken by his Department affecting the environment and human life arising from the use of depleted uranium, including dates of such assessments in the last 10 years. [145922]
  299W
  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if ordnance containing depleted uranium has been fired on the Otterburn Ranges; and if he will make a statement. [145934]

  Mr. Spellar
  No ordnance containing depleted uranium has ever been fired on the Otterburn Ranges.

  Overseas Military Bases
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total operating costs for all British overseas military bases less personnel costs were for the last year for which figures are available. [146090]

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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Arms Sales
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the system of prior scrutiny of arms sales in the United States and Swedish legislatures. [143693]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 21 December 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 21 December 2000, Official Report, column 338W.

  Modernising Government
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much for each financial year from 1998–99 until the latest date for which sums have been allocated her Department has spent and expects to spend on the implementation of the modernising government White Paper. [143698]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 21 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minster of State for the Cabinet Office on 21 December 2000, Official Report, column 245W.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to lift further the burden of debt from developing countries. [145917]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In 2000, 22 countries qualified for exceptional debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, exceeding the international target of 20 countries. This has resulted in over $50 billion in debt relief being agreed for these countries, which will reduce their debts by almost two thirds on average. We are continuing to work closely with the international community to secure the full implementation of the enhanced initiative, and hope that a number of other countries will qualify for relief this year. However, conflict is a major barrier to making substantial further progress.
  300W
  In December 2000, the Government announced a further step. Debt payments received from HIPC countries will be held in trust, and returned to countries for poverty reduction when they qualify for HIPC.

  The United Kingdom has taken, and will continue to take, a lead in the international effort to lift the burden of debt from eligible developing countries.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many flights including helicopter flights were taken by Ministers within her Department for UK and overseas visits in each year since 1995; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143866]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500, as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what categories of submissions from civil servants to Ministers, other than those relating to(a) intelligence and (b) personnel matters, are not circulated to special advisers; [143800]

  (2) what categories of submissions from civil servants are submitted to special advisers before being seen by Ministers. [143801]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Special advisers in this Department have access to material produced by permanent civil servants in accordance with paragraph 14e of the model contract for special advisers.

TREASURY

  Special Shares
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date he expects the Government to have redeemed all its special shares in non-defence-related, former nationalised companies. [145733]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government do not have a prescribed timetable for redeeming special shares in non-defence-related former nationalised companies.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the criteria his Department uses to determine the speed, and order in which the Government redeems its special shares in former nationalised companies. [145734]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There are no set criteria to determine the speed and order in which the Government redeem their special shares. Each case is treated on its merits.
  301W
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning redemption of Government special shares in(a) BAA pic, (b) BAE Systems, (c) Belfast International Airport, (d) BG pic, (e) British Energy pic, (f) Cable & Wireless plc, (g) CDC pic, (h) Eurostar (UK) Ltd., (i) Inter-Capital and Regional Rail Ltd., (j) London and Continental Railways Ltd., (k) National Grid Group pic, (l) Pheonix Natural Gas Ltd., (m) PUK pic, (n) Rolls-Royce pic, (o) Scottish Power pic, (p) Scottish and Southern Energy pic, (q) Scena Line Ltd., (r) UK Nirex Ltd., (s) Viridian Group pic and (t) VSEL Ltd., respectively. [145732]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government consider all representations received concerning the redemption of Government special shares. Each representation is considered on its own merits. However, initial discussions between the Government and the respective organisations in these matters are commercially sensitive and could not be disclosed publicly.

  Maastricht Criteria
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available to hon. Members his report to the EU Commission on his assessment of the United Kingdom's ability to meet the Maastricht criteria. [145619]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no such report. However, a recent UK report made to the EU entitled "Delivering Economic Stability" was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 22 December 2000. This report is not an assessment of Britain's ability to meet the Maastricht criteria.

  Vaccine Research
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with his commitment to increase funds available for vaccine research into HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB for developing countries announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. [145923]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government—in consultation with the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders—are undertaking an urgent study into what can be done to promote research into vaccines for those diseases that particularly affect developing countries such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB. As announced in the pre-Budget report, the Treasury is looking at a range of tax options, focusing on creating the right incentives, as part of a wider review of the response to this global issue co-ordinated by the Performance and Innovation Unit.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of workers on adult rates of pay in part-time employment have hourly earnings(a) including and (b) excluding overtime pay that are less than (i) £4.94, (ii) £6.58, (iii) £7.18 and (iv) £3.60 in (A) Scotland, (B) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (C) the UK, broken down by (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female workers, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) all workers. [145666]
  302W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Dominic Grieve, dated 17 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on hourly earnings for workers in Scotland, the unitary authorities in Scotland and the United Kingdom (145666). I am replying in his absence.
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than specific hourly low pay thresholds for all workers in the United Kingdom for Spring 2000, disaggregated by gender and full and part time. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds. These estimates are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/labour—market/nmw—lowpay—tables.asp.
  The improved methodology has been developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in the two surveys, the NES and the LFS, in measuring low pay. Estimates based on this methodology are not available for the areas and population sub-groups requested.
  It is possible to produce estimates for the proportion of employee jobs earning within the specified hourly pay bands for smaller areas from the NES. However, the NES underestimates the number of low pay jobs since it does not provide a comprehensive picture of the lower end of the earnings distribution.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of workers on adult rates of pay in part-time employment have hourly earnings, including and excluding overtime pay, less than (i) £5.11, (ii) £6.82, (iii) £7.39 and (iv) £3.70 in(a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain, broken down by (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) for all workers. [145073]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Michael Moore, dated 18 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions on hourly earrings for workers in Scotland, the unitary authorities in Scotland and Great Britain (145073). I am replying in his absence.
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than specific hourly low pay thresholds for all workers in the United Kingdom for Spring 2000, and the number of jobs paid at less than National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates for Spring 2000, disaggregated by gender and full and part time. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds. These estimates are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/labour—market/nmw—lowpay—tables.asp.
  The improved methodology has been developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in the two surveys, the NES and the LFS, in measuring low pay. Estimates based on this methodology are not available for the areas and population sub-groups requested.
  It is possible to produce estimates for the proportion of employee jobs earning within the specified hourly pay bands for smaller areas from the NES. However, the NES underestimates the number of low pay jobs since it does not provide a comprehensive picture of the lower end of the earnings distribution.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the details of the scheme for assisting rural post offices; what discussions have been held on this, and with whom; and when he expects to report to the House on his conclusions. [145916]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit's report on the future of the post office network, the Postal Services Commission will be advising the Government on the best way to channel financial assistance to rural post offices and issued a discussion document in December. The Commission has been asked to report by the autumn following consultations and discussions with the Consumer Council for Postal Services, the National Federation of Sub-postmasters and other key post office network stakeholders. A report to the House will be made thereafter.

  Euro
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact on the Scottish economy of the trading performance of the euro. [145661]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The latest data show that by the end of September 2000 the value of goods exported to the EU from Scotland had grown by 15 per cent. since the euro was launched.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the currencies which will be paid to the Bank of England for euro notes; and which currencies will be involved in the payment of interest. [145629]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Investors in euro notes will pay the Bank of England in euro. The Bank of England will pay interest on the notes in euro. These arrangements are identical to those in place for euro notes issued by the Government.

  Charity Donations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide businesses and wealthy individuals with greater fiscal incentives to make charitable donations. [146016]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The "Getting Britain Giving" package introduced last year provides significant incentives for businesses and wealthy individuals to make charitable donations. The £1,200 annual limit on donations under the payroll giving scheme has been removed to make it more attractive for higher earners, boosted by the Government's three year 10 per cent. supplement on all donations made in this way. The new relief for gifts of certain shares and securities provides a tax effective way for wealthy individuals with extensive shareholdings to give shares to charity and reduce their income tax bill by the full value of the gift. Higher rate taxpayers have always been able to claim tax relief on donations under gift aid. Companies can now give to charity by simply making a gross payment and claiming a deduction for the amount in their accounts.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if current funding for nature conservation projects will be safeguarded during the review of the landfill tax. [145613]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report 2000 that the Government would further explore how resources going through the landfill tax environmental bodies credit scheme can be better used to increase recycling rates, particularly of household waste. No decisions have been taken yet on reforming the scheme.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the sale of ineffective insurance policies to people aged under 18 years to cover the loss of mobile phones; and if he will make a statement. [145702]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have not received any representations about insurance policies which provide cover for the loss of mobile phones.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 458W, if he has received the Inland Revenue Commissioner's report; and if it has been presented to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. [145750]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have seen and approved for publication the Inland Revenue Annual Report for 1999–2000. It is planned to submit the report to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury and Parliament by the end of the month.

  National Debt
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the National Debt was per head of population in the UK for each of the last 30 years, in real terms using 1999–2000 prices. [144589]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for public sector net debt, the GDP deflator and UK population are available form the Office for National Statistics. Figures for public sector net debt (ONS series RUTN) are published in Table 1.1A of Financial Statistics; the GDP deflator (ONS series YBGB) is published in Table 2.1 of Economic Trends; and population figures are published in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 of Population Trends (number 102, Winter 2000).

  Public Expenditure
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total UK public expenditure was accounted for by expenditure on(a) defence, (b) police, (c) health, (d) education, (e) pensions, (f) unemployment benefits, (g) overseas aid, (h) agriculture, fisheries and food and (i) road building and maintenance in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [144590]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public expenditure by function is presented in Chapter 4 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01 (CM 4601).
  305W
  The specific series requested by the question are presented as a percentage of total managed expenditure on services in the following table.

  Proportion of total managed expenditure on services spent on specific functions 1999–2000

  Function

  As percentage TME on services

  Defence

  7.5

  Police

  3.0

  Health

  16.0

  Education

  13.4

  Pensions

  13.1

  Unemployment benefits

  7.9

  International development assistance

  0.7

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  1.6

  Roads

  1.6

  Total

  64.9

  Source:

  1. Table 4.5 Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 2000–01 (CM 4601).

  Marketable Wealth
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of UK marketable wealth owned by the least wealthy 50 per cent. of the UK population in each year from 1979–80 to 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [144610]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The latest available information on the distribution of UK marketable wealth relates to 1998. Data for 1984 to 1998 are given in the Table 13.5 of Inland Revenue Statistics 2000, and for the earlier years in the 1996 edition. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Public Sector Borrowing
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total of public sector net borrowing as a percentage of gross domestic product, added to taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of gross domestic product was for each of the years 1989–90 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [144591]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Figures for public sector net borrowing and taxes and social security contributions as a per cent. of GDP from 1989–90 to 1999–2000 were published in Table B26 of the pre-Budget report. Projects to 2005–06 were published in Tables B6 and B10 respectively.

  The Government have cut borrowing by £44 billion since 1996–97. As a result of lower borrowing, the Government are able to spend £4 billion a year more on key public services rather than on servicing the national debt.

  Social Inclusion
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent measures he has taken to encourage social inclusion in the regions of England. [145214]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have been asked to reply.
  306W
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 16 January 2001, Official Report, column 183W, given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). The Government are committed to tackling deprivation and the needs of disadvantaged communities through the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal action plan, launched on 15 January 2001. This aims to narrow the gap between deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country and to ensure that within 10 to 20 years no-one is seriously disadvantaged by where they live. The neighbourhood renewal unit, which is being established in DETR, will lead on implementing the action plan. It will work closely with new neighbourhood renewal teams in the Government Offices in the Regions.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to foster the growth of credit unions. [146022]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 7 December 1999,Official Report, columns 521–22W.

  Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will review the statutory basis for the role of the appointed actuary in insurance enterprises; [143942]

  (2) what action the Financial Services Authority takes to monitor the distribution of orphan assets; [143941]

  (3) if it is his policy that appointed actuaries in insurance enterprises can serve as chief executives. [143943]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: All these matters relate to the prudential regulation of insurance companies, for which the Financial Services Authority is the regulator. The Insurance Companies Act 1982 presently governs the prudential regulation of insurance companies. That Act will be repealed and replaced by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 when it comes into effect. Both statutory regimes require insurance companies to be soundly and prudently managed, and to take proper account of the interests of policy holders. The function and role of the appointed actuary are currently determined by the 1982 Act. It is for the FSA to assess whether those appointed to senior positions in authorised firms are fit and proper for their roles.

  Tax Credits
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will abolish the rule that an application for up to six months funding of working families tax credits can be applied for only if the employer submits such application for funding at least nine working days before such employer is due to pay tax credits. [145841]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employers can apply for funding at any time after they have been notified to start paying tax credit to one or more of their employees. The Inland Revenue aims to get funding to employers at least three days before the employer is first due to pay tax credits. To ensure the funding arrives in time employers are
  307W
  advised to apply at least nine working days in advance to allow time for funds to be cleared through the employers bank or building society account.

  Taxpayers (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) number and (b) percentage of higher rate taxpayers in each local authority area in Scotland. [145672]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue statistics (IRS) tables 3.14 provides information on the numbers of taxpayers, median income and median income by local authority. This is just a subset of those figures. Estimates for the number and percentage of higher rate taxpayers in each local authority in Scotland for 1996–97 (the latest year for which reliable figures are available) are provided in the table.

  Number of higher rate taxpayers:

  1996–97

  In each unitary authority

  As a percentage of all taxpayers

  Aberdeen City UA

  12,000

  10.1

  Aberdeenshire UA

  14,600

  12.8

  Angus UA

  4,900

  10.0

  Argyll and Bute UA

  3,300

  10.3

  Clackmannanshire UA

  1—

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway UA

  2,100

  3.4

  Dundee City UA

  3,900

  6.5

  East Ayrshire UA

  1—

  1—

  East Dumbartonshire UA

  5,300

  7.2

  East Lothian UA

  3,300

  7.2

  East Renfrewshire UA

  6,900

  15.0

  Edinburgh, City of UA

  24,900

  11.3

  Eilean Siar UA

  1—

  1—

  Falkirk UA

  4,000

  4.6

  Fife UA

  12,400

  6.6

  Glasgow City UA

  8,000

  3.4

  Highland UA

  6,300

  6.2

  Inverclyde UA

  1—

  1—

  Midlothian UA

  1—

  1—

  Moray UA

  2,700

  6.4

  North Ayrshire UA

  4,500

  6.6

  North Lanarkshire UA

  7,200

  4.7

  Orkney Islands UA

  1—

  1—

  Perthshire and Kinross UA

  5,600

  8.2

  Renfrewshire UA

  4,500

  6.1

  Scottish Borders UA

  4,200

  7.8

  Shetland Islands US

  1—

  1—

  South Ayrshire UA

  4,800

  8.7

  South Lanarkshire UA

  9,800

  6.9

  Stirling UA

  5,400

  12.6

  West Dumbartonshire UA

  1—

  1—

  West Lothian UA

  2,900

  3.8

  1 Sample size is not sufficient for a reliable estimate to be made

  This information is based on the survey of personal incomes.

  Social Exclusion (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the Third report of the Committee on Welsh Affairs, on social exclusion in Wales, concerning regional variations in tax to encourage investment in less developed areas. [146023]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government will be responding to the Committee in the usual way in due course. The Government set out a range of policies to promote fairness and to improve the economic performance of all parts of the UK in the pre-Budget 308W
  report. Wales also benefited from substantial increases in provision in the 2000 Spending Review, including in relation to Objective 1 funding, which is intended to stimulate economic development in less developed areas.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Liberalisation (Agriculture)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the impact of trade liberalisation on British agriculture. [144538]

  Mr. Caborn
  DTI and MAFF Ministers have regular discussions on trade issues.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the state of the automotive manufacturing and components industry. [144539]

  Mr. Byers
  The sector employs over 220,000 people and has an annual turnover of more than £40 billion. Since 1997, over £3 billion of new investment has been announced with over 10,000 new jobs in car manufacturing alone, and since 1997 we have seen record levels of production, sales and exports.

  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the UK car industry. [144551]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's policy on the UK car industry is the same as that for any other manufacturing sector—to assist industry to improve it's competitiveness in today's challenging global market.

  Textiles Industry (North-West)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for future employment in the textiles industry in the north-west. [144540]

  Mr. Caborn
  The industry-led textile and clothing strategy group report highlighted opportunities for the industry in the north-west in technical textiles, the application of new technology in traditional areas and a diversification into wider activities such as technical tapes and healthcare.

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with non-governmental organisations regarding the content of a draft bill on strategic arms exports. [144542]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of non-governmental organisations last November to discuss issues relating to the proposed Export Control Bill, including the Government's proposals for new controls on arms trafficking and brokering. Ministers and officials have also held other meetings with NGOs to discuss these issues.

  Insolvency Act
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assess the operation of the Insolvency Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [144543]

  Dr. Howells
  At the moment only Section 14 of the Act is in force and that is an order-making power. Before we can assess the operation of the Act we will need to bring the rest of its provisions into force. As was stated in the regulatory impact assessment, we will monitor its operation and assess it after three years.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to discuss the future of the network. [144545]

  Mr. Byers
  I last met representatives of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to discuss the future of the post office network on 24 November when I attended a meeting of the executive council.

  I understand I was the first Secretary of State to attend a meeting of federation's executive council.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements he has made for benefit payments to be made by way of Post Office accounts. [144549]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have given a commitment that both before and after the migration of benefit payments to automated credit transfer, those benefit and pension recipients who wish to collect their benefits in cash in full across a post office counter will continue to be able to do so. The development of universal banking services will ensure that arrangements for this are put in place.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards protecting the sub-post office network. [144554]

  Mr. Byers
  By accepting all 24 recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit's (PIU) report on the future of the post office network, the Government have demonstrated their continuing commitment to maintenance of a nationwide network. We are working closely with the Post Office, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and other stakeholders to implement the PIU recommendations and have placed a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network and prevent avoidable closures.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress with establishment of the universal bank. [144555]

  Mr. Byers
  Good progress is being made with the development of universal banking services. Agreement in principle was reached on 20 December 2000 with six banks, Barclays, Lloyds TSB Ltd, RBS/Nat West, HSBC, Abbey National and the Halifax, to contribute towards universal banking services at the Post Office. Discussions continue with other banks and building societies to examine what contributions they can make.
  310W
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there are in each parliamentary constituency; how many receive 40 per cent. or more of their annual income from pensions and benefits business; and if he will make a statement. [144593]

  Mr. Byers
  The most recent data available are as set out in the reply given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 22W.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) post offices and (b) sub-post offices there were in (i) Yeovil constituency and (ii) south Somerset in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [144592]

  Mr. Byers
  I understand from the Post Office that the historic data requested are not available and that the most recent data available for Yeovil constituency are as set out in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington on 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 22W.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to publicise the range of services available at the Post Office. [144537]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Publicity and advertising of the range of services available are operational matters for the Post Office. I understand that, in addition to in-store advertising of Post Office products and services often supported by local press and radio campaigns and promotional incentives, a new website carrying a comprehensive guide to all products and services available from the Post Office is to be launched later this month. This website will be advertised as part of the credits for the television travel programme "Wish You Were Here", which the Post Office is sponsoring for six months with the particular objective of advertising and promoting the travel insurance, foreign currency and travellers cheques services available either on demand or by order through all post offices.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have benefited from the Small Business Service's smart initiative since its inception. [144546]

  Mr. Byers
  From 1986 to the end of December 2000, my Department supported 3,103 individuals and small businesses through Smart and the former SPUR scheme, which it now incorporates.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the performance of manufacturing industry in the London region; and if he will make a statement. [144547]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Office for National Statistics figures for 1997, which are the latest figures available, show that the performance of manufacturing industry in London, on a gross value added per employee basis, is 112.4 per cent. of the UK average. Labour productivity is the second highest of the English regions.
  311W
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry. [144557]

  Mr. Caborn
  Manufacturing industry makes a vital contribution to the economy. We are helping manufacturing companies to be competitive by creating the right economic climate of stability, low inflation, and sound public finances and through policies which help firms to innovate, develop the skills of their work-force and grow.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of performance in the manufacturing industry in the west midlands region. [144558]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Office for National Statistics figures for 1997, the latest that are available, show the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands, on a gross value added per employee basis, is 91.5 per cent. of the UK average.

  "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers"
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made in implementing proposals in the White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers." [144548]

  Dr. Howells
  We have already implemented the majority of our proposals from the consumer White Paper, and are currently taking forward others, including stop now orders and legislation for the full pint of beer.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress being made on payments under the coal industry health compensation settlement. [144550]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department continues to pay out around £1 million per day in compensation, and has paid out over £310 million to former miners and their families with claims for respiratory and vibration-related diseases.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many compensation claims he has paid to miners and widows at the latest date for which figures are available. [144559]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at the end of December the Department had made final settlements to over 6,500 claimants for respiratory diseases—5,860 from former miners and 640 from widows and estates. In addition, the Department had made final settlements to over 19,240 claimants for vibration-related diseases—18,400 from former miners and 840 from widows and estates. Additionally, the Department had made interim payments to a further 15,800 former miners, and 8,600 to their families for claims in respect of respiratory diseases, and a further 21,300 interim payments to claimants for vibration-related diseases.

  The Department continues to pay out around £1 million per day in compensation, and has paid out over £310 million as at the end of December.
  312W
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide additional resources to assist with the processing of health compensation claims from former miners in the Leicestershire and South Derbyshire coalfields. [144566]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government will not allow the issues of resources to delay settlement.

  Electricity Market
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what future role he plans for small generators in the electricity market. [144552]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Small generators form an integral part of the Government's energy policy and are set to make an increasingly important contribution to the provision of secure, diverse, competitive and sustainable energy supplies.

  The Government are committed to a target of at least 10,000 MWe of installed CHP capacity by 2010 and have established a range of measures to support this target. Renewable sources of energy are an essential part of the Government's climate change programme. They are expected to provide 5 per cent. of our electricity supplies by 2003 and, subject to the cost to consumers being acceptable, 10 per cent. by 2010.

  Gas Prices (Manufacturing Industry)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on manufacturing industry of the recent rise in the price of gas. [144553]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are keenly aware of the significance of gas prices for industry and are working to establish a fully liberalised and competitive European gas market.

  Employment Agency Regulations
  28. Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had regarding the new Employment Agency regulations; and when he expects them to come into force. [R] [144556]

  Mr. Byers
  I have received representations both for and against the proposals issued in May 1999 and March 2000. Final proposals will be published shortly. Subject to parliamentary approval, I expect the revised regulations to come into force this summer.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on trends in case numbers in employment tribunals. [144560]

  Mr. Byers
  Over the last decade, caseload rose sharply in 1991–92 to nearly 60,000 applications and continued to rise, reaching a peak of 110,000 in 1995–96. In 1999–2000 just below 104,000 applications were made.

  Business Start-ups
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to make setting up a business more realistic for people from all social backgrounds. [144561]
  313W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has a wide range of measures designed to help prospective entrepreneurs regardless of their social background, details of which can be found on the Small Business Service website (www.businessadviceonline.org). However, some social groups are under-represented, and we have taken additional steps to encourage these, which include: Giving the Small Business Service a clear remit to tackle social exclusion. In particular the SBS has established a Social Inclusion Unit and is taking forward those recommendations relating to its work made by the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team on enterprise in its report of November 1999.

  Ensuring that Business Links' plans take account of the needs of their local communities, including those that face some form of disadvantage.

  Utilising the Phoenix Fund which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in November 1999. The Fund, the initial budget for which of £30 million over three years was trebled in Budget 2000, is designed to encourage the provision of high quality business support for entrepreneurs from disadvantaged or other under represented groups. Activities currently supported include community finance initiatives, business mentors and other innovative forms of business support.

  In conjunction with HM Treasury and the Inland Revenue, responding to the recommendations of the Social Investment Taskforce on ways of introducing new sources of private and institutional investment into disadvantaged communities.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the assistance given to small businesses. [144562]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have an ambitious goal that, by 2005, the UK can become the best place in the world to start and grow a business. We will continue to ensure that the United Kingdom's small firms can compete effectively and meet the challenges of the global economy. We recently published a document entitled "Think Small First" which sets out the Government's priorities for promoting an entrepreneurial society in which every small business and individual can achieve their full potential. The document proposes a number of objectives and specific measures to enable SMEs to meet the potential challenges of the next five years. It also proposes a framework for all Government Department's interactions with small businesses. Copies of the document have been placed in the House Libraries.

  In addition, the Government have created the Small Business Service (SBS) to bring together all its support for small businesses under one umbrella. The SBS is working with the regional development agencies to ensure a clear understanding of economic priorities and is committed to developing the Business Link network as the natural choice of smaller businesses seeking advice and support. The network will be strongly customer focused and will have an enlarged remit to cover pre-starts, start-up and micro businesses together with established and growth potential businesses.

  Equivalent services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are equally committed.
  314W
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with other Government Departments to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses. [144544]

  Mr. Byers
  I meet Ministers from other Government Departments on a regular basis to discuss ways to minimise the regulatory burden on small businesses.

  Biotechnology
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new spin-out companies have emerged from British biotechnology in the last year. [144563]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is estimated that at least 90 new biotechnology businesses were formed in the UK during 2000. This number includes both companies developing products (e.g. new drugs, diagnostics) and service companies (e.g. bioinformatics).

  Of these new companies over 40 per cent. received help from DTI support schemes specifically designed for the biotechnology sector.

  There is no national database containing information on biotechnology business formation and the above information was obtained from the regional biotechnology networks and Government support programmes.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of a universal bank. [144564]

  Mr. Byers
  Good progress is being made with the development of universal banking services. Agreement in principle was reached on 20 December 2000 with six banks, Barclays, Lloyds TSB Ltd, RBS/Nat West, HSBC, Abbey National and the Halifax, to contribute towards universal banking Services at the Post Office. Discussions continue with other banks and building societies to examine what contributions they can make.

  Ilisu Dam
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement with the Ilisu dam project in Turkey. [144565]

  Mr. Caborn
  In 1998 the Export Credits Guarantee Department received an application from Balfour Beatty for export credit support in respect of their proposed participation in the Ilisu dam project.

  In December 1999, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published two reports which we commissioned on environmental and social aspects of the project, he made it clear that before

  315W
  a decision is made on the availability of ECGD support, we will need to be satisfied on a number of conditions, in particular:
  proper consultation and arrangements for the resettlement of the affected population and assurance that their needs are being properly taken into account;
  provision for upstream water treatment plants capable of ensuring that water quality is maintained;
  assurance that water flow to downstream states will be maintained at all times;
  the project does not involve diversion for irrigation, but we need to be satisfied that an appropriate downstream flow will be maintained, particularly during impoundment;
  a detailed plan to preserve as much of the archaeological heritage of Hasankeyf as possible.

  We need to see and assess the final version of the environmental impact assessment report and the resettlement action plan in order to determine whether our conditions have been met. We expect the environmental impact assessment report to be made available to the export credit agencies shortly. The resettlement action plan may be made available at the same time. The environmental impact assessment report will be made publicly available before any decision is taken regarding export credit support from the UK. As we are not the owners of the reports we cannot be more specific about timing.

  The Export Credits Guarantee Department is in regular contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and trade partners regarding the project and all these Departments will be consulted prior to a decision being taken.

  Aviation Fuel
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to support the development and use of bioaviation fuels. [145724]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Together with the airline industry and others the DTI is reviewing a modest proposal to investigate the use of a fuel derived from biomass as a substitute for aviation kerosene.

  Such a fuel would need to meet the quality criteria for aviation kerosene.

  Special Shares
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the nature was of the representations he received about his Department redeeming its special shares in Powergen and National Power; and what criteria were applied in the process that led to his Department redeeming the shares. [145731]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The companies each wrote to my Department seeking redemption of their respective special shares. It is the Government's policy to consider any such request on its merits.

  In assessing whether to redeem the special shares my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry took into account whether the special shares were
  316W
  still valid and necessary in the context of a competitive market and a strengthened regulatory and competition framework.

  In line with NAO/PAC guidance, once my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had taken a decision to redeem each special share he then also sought additional consumer benefits from the companies concerned.

  Takahama Mox Fuel
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what will happen to the returned Takahama Mox fuel when it is imported from Japan into the United Kingdom. [146046]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a matter for BNFL. I understand that the options for managing the fuel once in the UK are still being considered. The chosen option will have to meet all of the relevant regulatory requirements.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on which date he first received advice from the British Embassy in Japan that discussions should begin with the Japanese Government and electricity industry on the issue of returning the Takahama Mox fuel to the United Kingdom, following the discovery of the data falsification at Sellafield. [146044]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The chronology on these issues is contained in my letter to the hon. Gentleman on 21 November 2000, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Minimum Wage
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific measures his Department has introduced to raise the awareness of the national minimum wage and the national minimum wage confidential helpline among ethnic minorities. [146087]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In the autumn of 1999, the Government ran a national minimum wage publicity campaign aimed at increasing awareness of the national minimum wage among ethnic minority communities. This was the first DTI campaign specifically to target ethnic minorities—especially Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Afro-Caribbean communities—in known low pay areas. The campaign also aimed to reassure people in these communities that complaints about underpayment of the minimum wage would be treated confidentially, and that enforcement is fair and effective. The confidential helpline number (0845 6000 678) was featured strongly.

  To complement the publicity campaign in September-October 2000 to raise awareness of the increase in the main rate to £3.70, in September 2000 my Department wrote to around 750 ethnic minority intermediaries such as community advice centres, career groups, religious bodies and business representatives telling them about the increase and to remind people that complaints about underpayment to the helpline will be treated in the strictest confidence. The letter also explained that guidance on the minimum wage is freely available in a number of languages, including the main Asian ones, by contacting the minimum wage helpline; and for those

  317W
  people who cannot speak English or would prefer to converse in their native tongue, the helpline has access to translation services in over 30 different languages.

  Israel (Exports)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is concerning the export to Israel of goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons; what changes were made to his policy during 2000; arid if he will make a statement. [145332]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  Applications for licences to export to Israel arms or other goods controlled for strategic reasons are considered on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national criteria that I announced on 26 October 2000, Official Report, columns 199–203W. This means inter alia that we will not issue licences where there is a clear risk that the equipment might be used for internal repression or external aggression or to provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions.

  We assess all applications, and make judgments, both against the criteria and in light of the information available at the time. No changes have been made to this policy in 2000. Inevitably however, unexpected events do happen and can alter the basis of those judgments.

  We have no evidence that equipment or components licensed for export to Israel by this Government have been used by Israeli security forces against civilians in the occupied territories or in southern Lebanon. We would be concerned if such evidence came to light. We continue to monitor the situation closely.

  We are, and have been, in regular direct contact with the Israeli Government as part of our inquiries to confirm that equipment and components licensed for export form the UK have not been used against civilians in the occupied territories and have received an assurance from the Israeli Government that no equipment or components licensed for export from the UK have been used against civilians during the recent disturbances.

HEALTH

  Hospital Insulation
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the NHS CO, standard of heat insulation, specified in PFI tenders for new hospital buildings, is implemented in existing and future contracts. [143163]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service has a good track record in achieving environmental targets, and there are a number of initiatives under way to support the NHS in achieving greater energy efficiency. This is an important matter, and we do not propose to stand still. We are therefore taking the following programme of action:

  We will write to all NHS trusts setting new mandatory targets for overall energy use and will be providing guidance to the NHS on how to improve its environmental performance.
  318W
  We will make existing targets for capital schemes mandatory, which means that all output specifications for private finance initiative schemes must comply with those targets.

  We will include a new section on energy efficiency in the Business Case checklist, which the Department uses in assessing the quality and readiness of proposals for capital schemes.

  The current British Standard for heat insulation is under review, and I have asked that my officials review the current model engineering specification in the light of this.

  The revised capital investment manual will include a new section focusing on environmental issues.

  A joint NHS Estates/Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions research and development project is under way to produce a building research establishment environmental assessment model for hospitals.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of repetitive strain injury were diagnosed and treated in each year since 1995; and what estimate he has made of the total cost of treating the condition. [145004]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Hip and Knee Replacements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hip and (b) knee replacement episodes were carried out for residents of each health authority in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000; and what proportion this represents of each resident population. [145861]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The tables show figures for elective hip and knee replacement operations for the years 1996–97 to 1999–2000, for patients resident in England and treated in National Health Service hospitals in England, by health authority of residence. The total numbers have increased from 37,410 hip replacements and 26,725 knee replacements in 1996–97, to corresponding figures of 41,561 and 33,414 in 1999–2000, an increase of 11 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Mid Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent figures for the total number of people waiting for hospital treatment in Mid Essex. [145949]

  Mr. Denham
  In November 2000, there were 9,050 patients waiting for inpatient treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust.

  Source:

  Monthly waiting list returns

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the £10,000 ex-gratia payments made to former Japanese prisoners of war count towards capital for the purposes of charging for nursing and social care. [146078]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has laid regulations and is in the process of issuing guidance to councils to ensure the ex-gratia payments are completely disregarded in the assessment of people's ability to pay for nursing home and residential care.

  With regard to home care and other non-residential services, the Department has recently issued similar draft guidance.

  Bedford Hospital
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to address issues arising from the undignified and disrespectful placing of bodies in the Chapel of Rest of the mortuary at Bedford Hospital. [146013]

  Mr. Denham
  The report of a full investigation by the Eastern Region of the National Health Service Executive will be published and placed in the Library. The Health and Safety Executive is due to visit Bedford Hospital on 18 January 2001 and the Commission for Health Improvement will include the mortuary facilities as part of its wider inspection of the hospital which will begin on 29 January 2001.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central for answer on 18 December 2000 on the use of gelatine in the manufacture of drug capsules. [146024]

  Yvette Cooper
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply to his questions tabled for answer on 18 December as soon as possible.

  NHS Dentists
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the number of NHS dentists who are overseas qualified dentists; and if he will make a statement. [144602]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 30 September 2000, there were 2,656 dentists providing General Dental Services in England who had qualified outside the United Kingdom. That is 15 per cent. of the total number of dentists providing General Dental Services.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the(a) proportion and (b) number of (i) adults and (ii) children who were registered with an NHS dentist in each (1) health authority and (2) county in England and Wales for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [144601]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information for England has been placed in the Library.

  The number of patients registered with a dentist for National Health Service treatment has declined since 1993 although in the past 12 months the numbers have started to
  320W
  increase. The decline was mainly due to dentists choosing to increase their private practice, to more dentists working part-time, the reduction in the registration period since 1996 and the elimination of duplicate registrations.

  Comparable data for 1991 are not available because registration was only introduced in October 1990 and the number of patients registered was still growing until 1992.

  Information about Wales is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Data are not available by county.

  Dental Services (Somerset)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the(a) start up costs and (b) annual running costs of the personal dentist service pilots in (i) Taunton and (ii) Yeovil; and what his estimate is of the number of people each year who will receive treatment at such centres. [144603]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Start-up costs (allocated)

  The start-up costs for this third wave dental access centre Personal Dental Service pilot scheme which has centres in Yeovil and Taunton are as follows: preparatory of £20,000 (£10,000 of this was allocated to them to work up a full proposal from their Expression of Interest); and capital of £585,000 including £85,000 for information technology capital.

  Running Costs (not allocated)

  The revenue allocation has not yet been issued as the matter is still under discussion.

  It is estimated that the number of patient to be seen annually once fully recruited to four additional dentists plus the clinical director will be 7,000 Community Dental Service (CDS) patients—based on historical CDS figures—and 8,000 new patients.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Somerset)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people have been on the in-patient waiting list at(a) East Somerset NHS Trust and (b) Taunton NHS Trust in each quarter since 1990–91; and how many of these people were waiting (i) more than six months, (ii) more than 12 months and (iii) more than 18 months; [144613]

  (2) what the in-patient waiting list size is at (i) East Somerset NHS Trust and (ii) Taunton NHS Trust; and how many people at each trust have been waiting (a) more than six months, (b) more than 12 months and (c) more than 18 months for an operation. [144612]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the tables. The two trusts in question did not exist prior to 1991–92, therefore no data are available.

  In-patient data—Taunton and Somerset National Health Service trust

  Year

  Quarter

  Total waiting list

  6–12 months

  12–18 months

  18 plus months

  1990–91

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  321W

  In-patient data—Taunton and Somerset National Health Service trust

  Year

  Quarter

  Total waiting list

  6–12 months

  12–18 months

  18 plus months

  1991–92

  1

  6,506

  1,525

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  2

  5,844

  1,524

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  3

  5,730

  1,255

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  4

  5,441

  1,134

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  1

  5,671

  1,338

  106

  15

  1992–93

  2

  5,843

  1,500

  61

  3

  1992–93

  3

  6,331

  1,510

  75

  8

  1992–93

  4

  6,119

  1,359

  0

  0

  1993–94

  1

  5,975

  1,383

  55

  2

  1993–94

  2

  5,888

  1,377

  56

  1

  1993–94

  3

  5,701

  1,268

  63

  4

  1993–94

  4

  5,479

  1,022

  0

  0

  1994–95

  1

  5,510

  972

  0

  0

  1994–95

  2

  5,222

  798

  0

  0

  1994–95

  3

  5,212

  701

  0

  0

  1994–95

  4

  4,993

  609

  0

  0

  1995–96

  1

  4,995

  480

  0

  0

  1995–96

  2

  5,088

  509

  1

  0

  1995–96

  3

  5,007

  408

  0

  0

  1995–96

  4

  4,899

  292

  0

  0

  1996–97

  1

  5,152

  329

  0

  0

  1996–97

  2

  5,201

  425

  0

  0

  1996–97

  3

  5,898

  648

  0

  0

  1996–97

  4

  6,282

  1,070

  0

  0

  1997–98

  1

  6,759

  1,388

  18

  0

  1997–98

  2

  6,710

  1,454

  52

  0

  1997–98

  3

  7,513

  1,576

  113

  0

  1997–98

  4

  7,523

  1,669

  22

  0

  1998–99

  1

  7,596

  1,739

  32

  0

  1998–99

  2

  7,385

  1,580

  44

  0

  1998–99

  3

  7,606

  1,591

  114

  0

  1998–99

  4

  7,440

  1,622

  137

  0

  1999–2000

  1

  7,451

  1,722

  137

  0

  1999–2000

  2

  7,630

  1,753

  180

  0

  1999–2000

  3

  7,690

  1,796

  211

  0

  1999–2000

  4

  7,027

  1,522

  271

  0

  2000–01

  1

  6,920

  1,380

  297

  0

  2000–01

  2

  6,753

  1,233

  197

  0

  n/a—not available

  In-patient data—East Somerset National Health Service trust

  Year

  Quarter

  Total waiting list

  6–12 months

  12–18 months

  18 plus months

  1990–91

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  1

  1,605

  302

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  2

  1,558

  295

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  3

  1,604

  263

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  4

  1,485

  196

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  1

  1,499

  193

  16

  1

  1992–93

  2

  1,601

  229

  16

  0

  1992–93

  3

  1,744

  217

  11

  0

  1992–93

  4

  1,670

  244

  0

  0

  1993–94

  1

  1,869

  260

  20

  0

  1993–94

  2

  1,845

  316

  26

  0

  1993–94

  3

  1,999

  308

  12

  0

  1993–94

  4

  1,725

  252

  0

  0

  1994–95

  1

  1,791

  220

  11

  0

  1994–95

  2

  1,721

  265

  7

  0

  1994–95

  3

  1,610

  244

  0

  0

  1994–95

  4

  1,423

  138

  0

  0

  1995–96

  1

  1,490

  139

  0

  0

  1995–96

  2

  1,673

  125

  2

  0

  1995–96

  3

  1,689

  122

  1

  0

  1995–96

  4

  1,634

  111

  0

  0

  1996–97

  1

  1,691

  112

  0

  0

  322W

  In-patient data—East Somerset National Health Service trust

  Year

  Quarter

  Total waiting list

  6–12 months

  12–18 months

  18 plus months

  1996–97

  2

  2,181

  169

  0

  0

  1996–97

  3

  2,599

  341

  0

  0

  1996–97

  4

  2,662

  429

  6

  0

  1997–98

  1

  2,614

  423

  64

  0

  1997–98

  2

  2,537

  417

  65

  0

  1997–98

  3

  2,874

  498

  45

  0

  1997–98

  4

  2,845

  516

  5

  0

  1998–99

  1

  2,660

  474

  19

  0

  1998–99

  2

  2,335

  409

  22

  0

  1998–99

  3

  2,485

  394

  42

  0

  1998–99

  4

  2,489

  382

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  1

  2,132

  299

  39

  0

  1999–2000

  2

  2,294

  293

  41

  0

  1999–2000

  3

  2,412

  325

  31

  0

  1999–2000

  4

  2,061

  346

  31

  0

  2000–01

  1

  2,081

  350

  47

  0

  2000–01

  2

  2,209

  355

  55

  0

  n/a—not available

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been on the out-patient waiting list at(a) East Somerset NHS Trust and (b) Taunton NHS Trust for each quarter since 1999–01; and how many of these people were waiting (i) more than six months, (ii) more than 12 months and (iii) more than 18 months. [144597]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the tables, however, out-patient data are collected by number of weeks waiting, rather than months. The tables show numbers who have waited over 13 and over 26 weeks. The Department does not collect information on the total number of people waiting for out-patient appointments on any given day. Because of the high turnover of out-patient waiting lists it would not be a useful indicator to have the total number of waiting at the last day of the quarter.

  Out-patient long waiters—Tauton and Somerset National Health Service Trust

  Year

  Quarter

  Not seen 13 to 25 weeks

  Not seen 26 weeks plus

  1995–96

  1

  743

  205

  1995–96

  2

  933

  271

  1995–96

  3

  966

  172

  1995–96

  4

  738

  191

  1996–97

  1

  1,010

  143

  1996–97

  2

  1,340

  142

  1996–97

  3

  1,277

  194

  1996–97

  4

  1,058

  210

  1997–98

  1

  932

  173

  1997–98

  2

  1,473

  155

  1997–98

  3

  1,380

  219

  1997–98

  4

  1,017

  199

  1998–99

  1

  1,337

  199

  1998–99

  2

  1,649

  363

  1998–99

  3

  1,598

  527

  1998–99

  4

  1,500

  478

  1999–2000

  1

  1,931

  552

  1999–2000

  2

  2,020

  577

  1999–2000

  3

  1,918

  643

  1999–2000

  4

  1,525

  603

  2000–01

  1

  2,168

  483

  2000–01

  2

  1,287

  256

  Source:

  QM08—waiting times quarterly return
  323W

  Out-patient long waiters—East Somerset NHS Trust

  Year

  Quarter

  Not seen 13 to 25 weeks

  Not seen 26 weeks plus

  1995–96

  1

  664

  277

  1995–96

  2

  752

  228

  1995–96

  3

  811

  189

  1995–96

  4

  736

  194

  1996–97

  1

  305

  20

  1996–97

  2

  393

  30

  1996–97

  3

  391

  60

  1996–97

  4

  472

  87

  1997–98

  1

  511

  146

  1997–98

  2

  727

  142

  1997–98

  3

  763

  225

  1997–98

  4

  606

  237

  1998–99

  1

  653

  210

  1998–99

  2

  725

  200

  1998–99

  3

  851

  196

  1998–99

  4

  649

  247

  1999–2000

  1

  922

  258

  1999–2000

  2

  838

  294

  1999–2000

  3

  737

  306

  1999–2000

  4

  763

  257

  2000–01

  1

  971

  295

  2000–01

  2

  567

  202

  Source:

  QM08—waiting times quarterly return

  Health Service Employees
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been employed by the National Health Service for each of the last 20 years. [144600]

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

  National Health Service hospital and community health services, public health medicine and general practitioners: All NHS staff in England as at 30 September each year

  All staff

  Whole time equivalents

  1980

  835,000

  1981

  867,000

  1982

  874,000

  1983

  874,000

  1984

  865,000

  1985

  861,000

  1986

  848,000

  1987

  847,000

  1988

  842,000

  1989

  876,000

  1990

  861,000

  1991

  870,000

  1992

  868,000

  1993

  848,000

  1994

  835,000

  1995

  842,000

  1996

  848,000

  1997

  846,000

  1998

  855,000

  1999

  873,000

  Notes:

  1. Whole time equivalent data for GPs are not available prior to 1991. Headcount data on GPs have been used for years 1980–90.

  2. The data include General Medical Practitioners, although the vast majority of these are self-employed.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Census.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Commonwealth Education Ministers Conference
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the nature was of the parliamentary business which occasioned the withdrawal of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), from leadership of the British delegation to the Commonwealth Education Ministers Conference in Halifax, Canada, in November 2000. [R] [144283]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Given the importance of the business before the House during the week of 27 November 2000, I felt that I should be present. This in no way reflects any weakening of our engagement with Commonwealth education initiatives, which is excellent. The UK fielded a strong delegation which, as previously agreed, was led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs in the Scottish Parliament.

  New Deal
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which 10 constituencies have the(a) most and (b) fewest people gained sustained employment under the New Deal. [145313]

  Ms Jowell
  The relative success in any constituency of young people moving into sustained employment through the New Deal will depend on numbers of young people in the eligible client group and prevailing labour market conditions. Latest figures show that to the end of October 2000 the constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood had the most young people moving into sustained employment through New Deal (1,023), and Wokingham showing the fewest (27).

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in(a) Somerset and (b) Yeovil Constituency are on each option of the New Deal. [144615]

  Ms Jowell
  Figures requested, as at the end of October 2000, are as follows:

  Somerset unit of delivery

  Yeovil constituency

  Number of young people on New Deal

  436

  49

  Number on the Employment Option

  25

  3

  Number on full-time Education and Training Option

  61

  5

  Number on Voluntary Sector Option

  47

  10

  Number on Environment Task Force Option

  18

  1

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what definition of business is used to determine the percentage of business representation on the regional learning and skills councils. [145228]
  325W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: In line with the commitment set out in the Learning and Skills Council Prospectus, business people on the local Learning and Skills Councils are defined as people with substantial recent business and commercial experience.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reason a resident of Herefordshire, with an approved individual learning account (reference 4001658711) who is studying `A' Level Welsh through Coleg Gwent, cannot transfer funding to study at a Welsh establishment; and if he will make a statement. [145436]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Individual Learning Account holders are free to decide how and where they undertake their chosen learning. This includes using a learning provider in a country outside the one in which they currently live as long as the provider is registered with the Individual Learning Account Centre. Anyone living in England who wants to study 'A' level Welsh can use an Individual Learning Account to help pay for the course costs at a Welsh establishment as long as they have opened their Individual Learning Account before enrolling on the course.

  Individual Learning Account incentives are made available in the form of a discount on the cost of learning and incentives cannot be claimed retrospectively once an individual has paid for and started their learning. We want Individual Learning Accounts to be used to encourage many new learners including those who will benefit most from the incentives.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many personal advisers under the Connexions strategy will be in post in each of the three years commencing April; and what is the cost of their employment. [145396]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Local Connexions Service Partnerships will determine how many personal advisers they will have in post. Partnerships invited to introduce the service in 2001–02 will be submitting business plans by 15 January, setting out the anticipated numbers of staff and associated costs, and proposals for the build-up of staff over the following two years.

  Student Support
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to(a) change the student support package to reflect social changes since the Education Act 1962 and (b) simplify and make more intelligible the content of the implementing regulations. [145395]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Our policy is to provide financial support in a way which is fair to students, families and the taxpayer and which provides carefully targeted help for the most needy. Among the changes we propose to make in 2001–02 are: a childcare grant package for students with children; an increase to the parent and spouse income thresholds of around 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation; and a
  326W
  simplified method of calculating contributions from parents and spouses. These changes will be set out in the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2001, which will be laid before Parliament in the spring.

  Bursaries
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local authority areas in England and Wales will be eligible for the take up of opportunity bursaries in October 2001; and what will be the individual eligibility for students from those areas to receive such bursaries. [145257]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: As my right hon. Friend announced last September, Opportunity Bursaries in England are being piloted initially for students studying at state schools and colleges in Excellence in Cities Phase 1 and 2 areas, which includes Newcastle upon Tyne. The Bursaries, worth £2,000 each over three years, will be awarded by higher education institutions, all of which have been given guidance from the Department for this purpose. The Bursaries are intended to improve access for bright young students from poorer backgrounds, where there is little or no family connection with, or experience of, higher education.

  Eligibility for Opportunity Bursaries in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mature students received bursaries for childcare and travel in 2000–01; from which local education authority areas those students came; and which universities those students attended. [145256]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The table shows the number of bursaries awarded to mature students at higher education institutions (HEIs) in England in 2000–01 for childcare and other course-related costs, as at 31 October 2000. The bursaries have been a success and we expect a full take-up by students. HEIs received 80 per cent. of the total funding available for such bursaries in September 2000. 20 per cent. was held back to take account of students who entered universities through clearing and expected numbers of students whose courses did not start until later in the year, and will shortly be allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council. HEIs have not collected information on the local education authority areas from which students who have received these bursaries come. The number of bursaries given out by Welsh institutions is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  We are introducing a package of measures this autumn including a Childcare Grant based on actual costs of up to £100 per week. Bursaries for mature students will continue for those ineligible for the Childcare Grant.

  Institution

  Number of bursaries

  Universities

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  226

  Aston University

  24

  University of Bath

  34

  Birkbeck College

  0

  University of Birmingham

  133

  Bournemouth University

  73

  327W

  Institution

  Number of bursaries

  University of Bradford

  57

  University of Brighton

  162

  University of Bristol

  57

  Brunel University

  121

  University of Cambridge

  18

  University of Central England

  148

  University of Central Lancashire

  288

  City University

  3

  Coventry University

  56

  De Montfort University

  303

  University of Derby

  169

  University of Durham

  90

  University of East Anglia

  48

  University of East London

  454

  University of Essex

  31

  University of Exeter

  69

  Goldsmiths College

  123

  University of Greenwich

  248

  University of Hertfordshire

  143

  University of Huddersfield

  67

  University of Hull

  96

  Imperial College

  0

  Keele University

  50

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  52

  King's College London

  36

  Kingston University

  122

  Lancaster University

  62

  University of Leeds

  41

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  196

  University of Leicester

  13

  University of Lincolnshire and Humberside

  124

  University of Liverpool

  88

  Liverpool John Moores University

  314

  London Guildhall University

  122

  Loughborough University

  25

  University of Luton

  112

  University of Manchester

  92

  UMIST

  0

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  352

  Middlesex University

  577

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  27

  University of North London

  226

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  111

  University of Nottingham

  11

  Nottingham Trent University

  225

  Open University

  0

  University of Oxford

  10

  Oxford Brookes University

  72

  University of Plymouth

  306

  University of Portsmouth

  166

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  52

  University of Reading

  77

  Royal Holloway, University of London

  14

  University of Salford

  148

  University of Sheffield

  130

  Sheffield Hallam University

  306

  University of Southampton

  48

  South Bank University

  129

  Staffordshire University

  231

  University of Sunderland

  180

  University of Surrey

  8

  University of Sussex

  131

  University of Teesside

  276

  Thames Valley University

  235

  University College London

  22

  University of Warwick

  79

  University of West of England, Bristol

  194

  University of Westminster

  50

  University of Wolverhampton

  311

  University of York

  81

  328W

  Institution

  Number of bursaries

  General colleges

  Bath Spa University College

  180

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  115

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

  74

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  107

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of HE

  102

  Chester College of Higher Education

  65

  University College Chichester

  96

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  110

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  39

  Liverpool Hope

  96

  University College Northampton

  71

  College of Ripon and York St. John

  47

  St. Mary's College

  10

  Southampton Institute

  107

  University of Surrey Roehampton

  143

  University College Worcester

  80

  Specialist colleges

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  5

  Bretton Hall

  73

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  8

  Cranfield University

  6

  Cumbria College of Art and Design

  13

  Dartington College of Arts

  6

  Institute of Education

  0

  Falmouth College of Arts

  0

  Harper Adams University College

  2

  Homerton College, Cambridge

  18

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  4

  University of London—Institutes and Activities

  0

  London Business School

  0

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  0

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  0

  The London Institute

  81

  Newman College

  60

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  1

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  13

  School of Oriental and African Studies

  35

  School of Pharmacy

  0

  Ravensbourne College

  9

  RCN Institute

  0

  Rose Bruford College

  4

  Royal Academy of Music

  3

  Royal College of Art

  0

  Royal College of Music

  0

  Royal Northern College of Music

  2

  Royal Veterinary College

  0

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  10

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  118

  St. Martin's College

  90

  The Surrey Inst of Art & Design University College

  13

  Trinity and All Saints

  32

  Trinity College of Music

  1

  Wimbledon School of Art

  0

  Writtle College

  9

  Total

  11,533

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate what proportion of students in each Government office region paid(a) full and (b) partial tuition fees and the proportion of those who were exempt in the 2000–01 academic year; and if he will estimate what percentage in each category there will be in each region in 2001–02. [145255]
  329W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Estimates of the proportion of students paying a full, partial and nil contribution towards tuition fees under the new student finance arrangements are available only at a

  Percentage

  1998–19991

  1999–20002

  2000–012

  2001–022

  Nil student/parent/spouse contribution

  45

  45

  45

  50

  Partial student/parent/spouse contribution

  20

  20

  20

  15

  Full student/parent/spouse contribution

  35

  35

  35

  35

  1 Actual

  2 Forecast

  The proportion of students who are exempt from making any contributions is expected to increase in 2001–02 to around 50 per cent. as a result of changes to the contribution threshold.

  Travel Costs (Jobseekers)

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of reimbursing the travel costs of those people in rural areas who have had to travel to jobcentres to sign on and claim benefits in the last three years; [145135]

  (2) how much was spent in the most recent year for which figures are available on reimbursing those on jobseeker's allowance, travelling to an interview at the jobcentre other than on their normal day of attendance. [145126]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated January 2001:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the costs of reimbursement of travel expenses for people attending Jobcentres. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I am afraid that it is not possible to estimate the cost of reimbursing travel expenses for people living in rural areas who have to travel to Jobcentres to sign on and claim benefits. People are usually required to attend the Jobcentre fortnightly as part of maintaining their claim for Jobseeker's Allowance. There are, though, circumstances in which people may make their fortnightly declaration that they are available for and actively seeking work—by post. These circumstances allow people who would have to spend an unreasonable amount of their time travelling to the Jobcentre, and those who have a mental or physical disability which restricts their mobility, to make their fortnightly declarations by post.
  You also ask how much was spent last year on reimbursing the travel expenses of people who had travelled to an interview at the Jobcentre other than on their normal day of attendance. The total amount paid to people to reimburse travel expenses in the operational year 1999–2000 was just over £447,000. That figure includes travel expenses reimbursed in a variety of circumstances, for example the fares incurred by people taking part in the New Deal programmes who have travelled to see their personal advisers or to attend work trials with employers.
  I hope this is helpful.
  330W
  national level. For students normally resident in England and Wales, the figures for 1998–99 (the most recent year for which actual data are available) to 2001–02 are given in the table.

  FACCENTA Group (Redundancies)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional resources he will provide to the Employment Service in Lymington and the New Forest to assist with redundancies consequent upon the reorganisation of the FACCENTA Group. [145015]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Desmond Swayne, dated January 2001:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the additional resources which will be made available to the Employment Service in Lymington and the New Forest to assist with redundancies consequent upon the reorganisation of the Faccenda Group. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Employment Service in our London and South East Region made contact with the company immediately that these redundancies were announced on 10 January. As a result:
  a 'Job Shop' will be set up on the company's premises from 15 January which will provide information on available vacancies and the support available to individual employees;
  the employees affected will be given immediate access to Work Based Training to update their skills. They will also have immediate access to help with jobsearch and CV preparation;
  the local Jobcentre will offer a personal adviser service to every one of the employees affected to ensure that they can be matched against suitable vacancies prior to redundancies taking effect;
  information sessions for those affected will be run jointly with the Benefits Agency to provide advice and guidance about benefits and jobsearch. These seminars will be provided on-site at times convenient to the working pattern of the company.
  The necessary resources to provide these services will be made available from the Employment Service locally supplemented by whatever additional resources are necessary from the Employment Service's London and South East Region.
  In addition, the Region's Rapid Response Team, which exists to lend additional support in the case of large-scale redundancies, will be made available as necessary.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) his Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising

  331W
  campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142713]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department's total spend on advertising was:

  £

  1996–97

  7,537,917

  1997–98

  9,992,350

  1998–99

  15,673,258

  1999–2000

  11,900,968

  2000–011

  15,166,537

  1 To end of December 2000

  Campaigns over £500,000 are:

  1996–97

  £

  Modern Apprenticeships

  To encourage young people and employers to sign up to Modern Apprenticeships

  2,611,339

  Nursery Vouchers

  To ensure that eligible parents and providers understood how they were affected by the new arrangements introduced under the Nursery Voucher Scheme

  1,074,646

  Disability Discrimination

  To inform employers about the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995

  664,889

  1997–98

  £

  New Deal

  To raise awareness of New Deal and to inform the public, employers and potential clients

  6,409,339

  National Traineeships

  To encourage employers to offer National Traineeships to young people

  800,000

  Modern Apprenticeships

  To raise awareness of Modern Apprenticeships among young people and employers

  912,321

  Disability Discrimination

  Consultation to review the lowering of the threshold exempting small employers from the DDA's employment provisions, from 20 to 15 employees

  520,995

  1998–99

  £

  New Deal

  To promote awareness of New Deal and to inform potential clients and employers, and to sign up employers

  4,772,362

  Reading and Literacy

  To encourage parents to get more involved in their children's reading (linked to National Year of Reading)

  3,648,233

  Disability Discrimination

  To inform employers about how the Disability Discrimination Act affects them

  1,924,033

  332W

  1998–99

  £

  National Traineeships

  To encourage employers to take up National Traineeships

  1,502,023

  Learning Direct

  Promoting the Learning Direct helpline to young people

  619,026

  Career Development Loans

  To encourage young people to take out CDLs to improve their career prospects

  603,590

  Millennium Bug Busters

  To promote to employers training on how to prepare for the Millennium Bug

  585,101

  1999–2000

  £

  Disability Discrimination

  To challenge the general public to change their attitude to disability and to inform employers about the Disability Discrimination Act

  2,643,160

  Maths Year 2000

  To encourage parents to help with their children's maths (linked to Maths Year 2000)

  2,322,336

  Age Diversity

  To address age discrimination in recruitment and employment practice

  1,127,946

  National Traineeships

  To encourage young people to take up National Traineeships

  1,077,300

  One

  To promote the launch of the One scheme in 12 pilot areas

  872,807

  Childcare Link

  To promote a helpline telling parents what childcare options are available in their area

  809,592

  Time Off for Study

  To inform employers of their legal responsibilities under the Right to Time Off for Study Act

  702,001

  2000–011

  £

  Don't Quit Now

  To raise awareness of the benefits of staying in some form of learning after reaching the age of compulsory education

  2,700,000

  New Deal 50 plus

  To increase participation in New Deal 50 plus

  2,399,779

  ICT Employability

  To encourage those out of work to take up taster courses in ICT

  2,011,305

  Childcare Recruitment

  To encourage recruitment into the childcare sectors by young people and returners

  1,820,608

  Disability Discrimination

  To tell SME service providers how aspects of the Disability Discrimination Act affect them

  1,241,982

  333W

  2000–011

  £

  Modern Apprenticeships

  To promote the availability of Modern Apprenticeships

  855,595

  Individual Learning Accounts

  To encourage people to take up Individual Learning Accounts to improve their career prospects

  611,767

  Fast Track Teachers

  To inform potential recruits about the fast-track teachers scheme

  1,055,788

  Parents' Magazine

  To promote a magazine which helps parents to get more involved in their children's education

  1,483,660

  1 To end of December 2000

  Detailed evaluation criteria are not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost. However, every campaign is measured vigorously against specific communication objectives using pre- and post-campaign research, conducted by independent research companies, to record shifts in awareness, attitudes, knowledge or behaviour among the target audience(s).

  The Department employs tracking research to monitor these shifts over time and typically conducts telephone surveys of respondents to advertising campaigns to monitor satisfaction with the services offered and actions taken as a result of the campaign. It routinely tests the likely effectiveness of different creative approaches on the target audience(s) through market research, as part of the development of advertising campaigns. Lessons learned from previous campaigns are used to inform future ones.

  European Disability Forum
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the work of the European Disability Forum. [145873]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government recognise the importance of a network of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) at European level. Within the European Community, the European Disability Forum has a key role in representing the views of disabled people, informing policy development, and delivering specific actions. The Government acknowledge this and are keen to maintain a constructive dialogue with the Forum.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what appraisal he has carried out of the implications of European Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 for the legal and administrative arrangements affecting disabled people in employment and occupation in the United Kingdom. [145872]

  Ms Hodge
  We published a consultation document and Regulatory Impact Assessment on 29 August 2000 based on the first draft of the directive. The directive was published in its final form on 27 November 2000. We have been considering the directive and although we have not completed our considerations, it is clear that the 334W
  Disability Rights Task Force anticipated many of the requirements of the directive in its report published in December 1999. We hope to deal with these when we publish our final response to the Task Force's report and we will also be publishing shortly an explanatory memorandum on the text of the directive.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will rank local education authorities by the average amount that their education spending has exceeded their education SSA, as a percentage of that SSA, for the years since 1997–98. [144621]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table gives, for each local education authority in England, their rank position according to the average amount that their budgeted education spending has exceeded their education SSA, as a percentage of SSA, taken over the financial years 1998–99 to 2000–01, the years for which this information is readily available and compatible from year to year.

  LEAs ranked accordn g to their education spending in relation to SSA, averaged over 1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–01

  LEA

  Percentage

  Kensington and Chelsea

  26.6

  Westminster

  13.1

  Bristol

  12.3

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  10.2

  Bath and North East Somerset

  9.9

  Trafford

  9.1

  Rutland

  8.5

  Coventry

  7.7

  Cheshire

  7.5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7.4

  Dudley

  6.9

  Birmingham

  6.8

  Dorset

  6.5

  South Gloucestershire

  6.4

  Wolverhampton

  6.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6.0

  York

  5.5

  North Somerset

  5.4

  North Yorkshire

  5.4

  Nottinghamshire

  5.0

  Leeds

  4.9

  Gateshead

  4.9

  St. Helens

  4.9

  Somerset

  4.9

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  4.8

  Wigan

  4.8

  Durham

  4.6

  Salford

  4.4

  Cumbria

  4.2

  Richmond upon Thames

  4.2

  Warwickshire

  4.2

  North Lincolnshire

  4.1

  North Tyneside

  4.0

  Reading

  4.0

  Southampton

  4.0

  Barnet

  3.9

  Poole

  3.9

  Leicestershire

  3.9

  Lancashire

  3.8

  Cambridgeshire

  3.3

  Bournemouth

  3.2

  Stockport

  3.1

  Sefton

  3.1

  Camden

  3.1

  Shropshire

  3.0

  335W

  LEAs ranked accoding to their education spending in relation to SSA, averaged over 1998–99,1999–2000, and 2000–01

  LEA

  Percentage

  Harrow

  2.9

  Derbyshire

  2.9

  West Sussex

  2.8

  Sandwell

  2.7

  Luton

  2.6

  Norfolk

  2.4

  Suffolk

  2.3

  Brighton and Hove

  2.2

  Lambeth

  1.9

  Oldham

  1.9

  Warrington

  1.8

  Southwark

  1.8

  Portsmouth

  1.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.6

  Hampshire

  1.5

  Bury

  1.5

  Stockton on Tees

  1.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  1.3

  North East Lincolnshire

  1.2

  Lincolnshire

  1.2

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1.2

  Bolton

  1.1

  Staffordshire

  1.0

  West Berkshire (Newbury)

  0.9

  Croydon

  0.8

  Wokingham

  0.8

  Waltham Forest

  0.8

  East Sussex

  0.8

  Sutton

  0.8

  Isles of Scilly

  0.8

  Solihull

  0.8

  Wiltshire

  0.7

  Kingston upon Hull

  0.7

  Walsall

  0.7

  Northumberland

  0.6

  Calderdale

  0.6

  Isle of Wight

  0.6

  Southend on Sea

  0.3

  Kirklees

  0.3

  Tower Hamlets

  0.3

  Wakefield

  0.3

  Rochdale

  0.3

  Islington

  0.3

  Havering

  0.2

  Essex

  0.2

  Hertfordshire

  0.2

  Sheffield

  0.1

  Ealing

  0.1

  Haringey

  0.1

  Northamptonshire

  0.1

  Bedfordshire

  0.0

  Devon

  0.0

  Lewisham

  -0.1

  Stoke-on-Trent

  -0.1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  -0.1

  Herefordshire

  -0.1

  City of Plymouth

  -0.2

  Peterborough

  -0.3

  Worcestershire

  -0.3

  Tameside

  -0.3

  Enfield

  -0.3

  Manchester

  -0.4

  Hartlepool

  -0.4

  Surrey

  -0.6

  Halton

  -0.6

  Doncaster

  -0.7

  Bracknell Forest

  -0.7

  Kent

  -0.7

  Cornwall

  -0.8

  Buckinghamshire

  -0.8

  Thurrock

  -1.0

  Liverpool

  -1.0

  336W

  LEAs ranked accoding to their education spending in relation to SSA, averaged over 1998–99,1999–2000, and 2000–01

  LEA

  Percentage

  Gloucestershire

  -1.1

  Greenwich

  -1.1

  Merton

  -1.2

  Darlington

  -1.2

  City of Derby

  -1.2

  South Tyneside

  -1.2

  Wirral

  -1.3

  Torbay

  -1.4

  Oxfordshire

  -1.6

  Hillingdon

  -1.6

  Sunderland

  -1.7

  Swindon (Thamesdown)

  -1.8

  Leicester City

  -1.8

  Medway

  -1.8

  Hounslow

  -1.9

  Rotherham

  -1.9

  Redbridge

  -2.0

  Wandsworth

  -2.0

  City of Nottingham

  -2.4

  Telford and Wrekin

  -2.4

  Knowsley

  -2.6

  Bromley

  -2.8

  Barnsley

  -3.0

  Bradford

  -3.0

  Newham

  -3.2

  Bexley

  -3.8

  Hackney

  -3.8

  Brent

  -4.1

  Milton Keynes

  -4.6

  Slough

  -4.7

  Blackpool

  -4.8

  Middlesbrough

  -5.6

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average per pupil standard spending assessment is in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in (i) England and (ii) Somerset; if he will estimate the sums which would be available for education in Somerset if the average per pupil standard spending assessment for primary and secondary schools in Somerset were the same as the average for England; and if he will make a statement. [144594]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows the 2001–02 provisional education SSA per primary and secondary pupil for Somerset and England.

  £

  SSA

  Somerset

  England

  Primary per pupil

  2,405

  2,588

  Secondary per pupil

  3,098

  3,314

  If Somerset's SSA per pupil for primary and secondary schools was the same as the national average, it is estimated that its provisional 2001–02 education SSA would be £12.6 million higher. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01, funding per pupil in Somerset has increased by £360 in real terms. In addition to a provisional increase of £10.7 million in education SSA, schools in Somerset will benefit from an estimated £5.39 million in Direct Grant in 2001–02.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his estimate is of the level of spending per pupil in(a) primary schools and

  337W
  (b) secondary schools in Somerset for each year from 1990–91 to 2001–02, expressed in 1999–2000 prices: and if he will make a statement. [144595]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Spending on schools in Somerset for the financial years 1990–91 to 1998–99, the latest year for which this information is readily available, is given separately for primary and secondary schools in the table. These figures are based on net institutional expenditure at 1999–2000 prices.

  £ per pupil

  Pre-primary and primary

  Secondary

  1990–91

  1,610

  2,430

  1991–92

  1,670

  2,410

  1992–93

  1,800

  2,660

  1993–94

  1,850

  2,490

  1994–95

  1,910

  2,430

  1995–96

  1,850

  2,470

  1996–97

  1,780

  2,400

  1997–98

  1,780

  2,340

  1998–99

  1,860

  2,430

  The second table sets out the resources made available to Somerset local education authority for primary and secondary education since 1997–98, at 2000–01 prices. These figures are not directly comparable with net institutional expenditure set out, but they do reflect real terms increases in primary and secondary funding per pupil over the last three years of £370 and £330 respectively.

  £ per pupil

  Standard spending assessment

  Special and specific grants

  SSA and special/specific grants

  Primary

  1997–98

  2,140

  40

  2,180

  1998–99

  2,200

  40

  2,240

  1999–2000

  2,270

  120

  2,390

  2000–01

  2,310

  240

  2,550

  Secondary

  1997–98

  2,810

  30

  2,850

  1998–99

  2,870

  40

  2,910

  1999–2000

  2,920

  80

  3,000

  2000–01

  2,980

  190

  3,180

  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 nationally. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £370 per pupil over the three-year period, taking the total increase to nearly £700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority in England the amount each such authority has spent on education above its education SSA for each of the years 1995–96 to 2001–02(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the total education SSA of the authority. [144620]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A table containing a comparison of SSA and budgeted expenditure, for each local education authority in England for the years 1995–96 to 2000–01,338W
  the latest year for which this information is available, has been placed today in the Library. The information is given both in cash terms and as a percentage of the total education SSA.

  To a great extent the variation in budgeted spending compared to SSA from year to year reflects the annual decisions each local authority makes to fluctuating demands and priorities for the funding of various services. For 2000–01, information on budgeted spending was taken from budget statements submitted to the Department by local education authorities under s52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Information for prior years was submitted to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions by local authorities on the Revenue Accounts return.

  ICT Funding
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what monitoring of local education authorities his Department undertakes to ensure that ICT funding is distributed to schools in an appropriate manner. [146085]

  Mr. Wills
  Local education authorities have submitted ICT development plans that indicate how they propose to achieve the National Grid for Learning targets in their schools, and provide regular reports on how these are being implemented. From 2001 these reports will also be used to identify progress towards the minimum standards of ICT provision in schools defined as the NGfL baseline. Complementary information is collected at national level through the DfEE's annual survey of ICT in schools, while expenditure supported by NGfL funding is audited alongside that funded by other Standards Fund grants.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the advice he offers to local education authorities on the distribution of ICT funds to schools. [146084]

  Mr. Wills
  Research proves that ICT can deliver real educational benefits for both teachers and learners.

  By supporting £657 million of expenditure on ICT in schools between 1998 and 2002 as part of the National Grid for Learning initiative—and by committing a further £710 million of support between 2002 and 2004—we intend to make these benefits available in all schools.

  To ensure that this investment is used effectively, local education authorities and schools can access detailed guidance on the Standards Fund website (http://www.dfee.gov.uk/standardsfund/) including copies of relevant DfEE circulars. The guidance makes clear that in devolving funding to schools, LEAs must ensure that schools are able to achieve the targets set out in 1998 in the NGfL Challenge, and that in doing so, they meet the minimum standards of ICT provision defined in the NGfL baseline.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Awards
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the budgeted
  339W
  value of the awards made in 2000–01 in each Government Office region by (a) Sport England and (b) the Arts Council. [144278]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information is in the table. For Sport England the figure for each region covers the lottery grants awarded since April 2000 to date, regional specific grant-in-aid, plus expenditure on the national sports centres. For the Arts Council for England the figure represents the amount of lottery funding delegated to the regional arts boards and the amount of grant-in-aid given to each regional arts board.

  £

  Sport England

  Arts Council for England

  East of England

  6,082,718

  9,582,972

  East Midlands

  7,098,084

  11,319,932

  London

  5,824,227

  50,122,428

  North East

  2,290,311

  12,021,0821

  North West

  10,114,925

  24,914,128

  South East

  8,090,819

  8,009,364

  Southern2

  n/a

  14,455,863

  South West

  10,365,256

  11,415,644

  West Midlands

  8,801,880

  16,636,080

  Yorkshire

  5,151,847

  12,500,978

  1 Northern Arts covers the North East Government Office Region plus Cumbria which is in the North West Government Office Region

  2 Most of the Southern Arts Board are in the Government Office South East region

  Wembley
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had about securing the land for a warm up track at Wembley. [145836]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Neither the Minister for Sport nor I have had any discussions about securing land for a warm-up track at Wembley. My officials recently asked the secretariat of the Wembley Task Force to update the assessment they made in 1999 on the feasibility of a warm-up facility adjacent to the stadium. WNSL have now concluded that Wembley cannot accommodate the 2005 world athletics championships.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions his Department has had with(a) Sport England and (b) Brent council about establishing a regional sports facility around the warm up track to be built for the 2005 world athletics championships at Wembley; [145742]

  (2) if his discussions with Rodney Walker on 10 January included discussion of Government funding of (a) the National Stadium and (b) developments associated with it. [145832]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Minister for Sport and I met Sir Rodney Walker, Chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd., on 10 January to receive a verbal report on the progress of WNSL's review of the Wembley stadium project. At that meeting, Sir Rodney updated us on the discussions he has had with UK Athletics, Sport England, the London borough of Brent and other interested parties.340W
  My Department has had no discussions with Sport England, or Brent council about establishing a regional sports facility around any warm-up track were such a track to be built at Wembley.

  The Government welcome WNSL's announcement ruling out the possibility of athletics returning to Wembley for the 2005 world athletics championships. This decision should bring certainty to both projects, and accords with the long-standing view of both UK athletics and the Government that Lee Valley is by far the best option for the 2005 world athletics championships and for ensuring athletics has a long-term legacy stadium and a new centre of excellence to develop future generations of world-class athletes.

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which of the English regional arts boards have a vacant literature officer post; and for how long each of these posts have been vacant. [145833]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  East England Arts is the only regional arts board currently without a literature officer. The post has been vacant since the summer.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of Arts Council funding is spent on literature. [145834]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In 1999–2000, the Arts Council of England spent £1.707 million or 0.8 per cent. of its funding directly on literature, although literature also benefited from support to cross-artform initiatives such as the new audiences programme.

  Spoliation Advisory Panel
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals in response to the claim concerning the "View of Hampton Court Palace" by Jan Griffier the Elder at the Tate Gallery. [146570]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have received the report, which is published today as a parliamentary paper, of the spoliation advisory panel's examination of the claim in relation to the Griffier painting in the Tate Gallery. On behalf of the Government, I welcome the panel's report and will implement the recommendation which is addressed to us.

  In setting up the panel, we recognised the duty to do what the Government can to play their part in righting these historic wrongs and the need to ensure that questions of ownership of works of art arising from the terrible events of the Nazi era are resolved. Although the report makes it clear that the family, who wish to remain anonymous, have no legal title to the painting, and that there is no criticism whatsoever of the Tate Gallery, I accept on behalf of the Government the panel's advice that there is a moral strength to the claimant's argument and that, in the spirit of the declaration of principles agreed at the Washington conference on holocaust-era assets held in December 1998, this justifies an ex gratia payment of £125,000.

CABINET OFFICE

  Social Inclusion
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what account the social inclusion strategy takes of the role of independent advice services in the provision of free and impartial advice. [146092]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Social Exclusion Unit's third report on deprived neighbourhoods—"A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy Action Plan"—was launched by the Government on Monday 15 January 2001. The report—the culmination of over two years' research and a nationwide consultation—set out a more comprehensive approach than ever before for tackling neighbourhood deprivation.

  Voluntary and community organisations—such as independent advice services—have an important role to play in the implementation of the strategy. At local level, neighbourhood renewal will be led by local strategic partnerships—made up of community, voluntary, public and private sector organisations. Each partnership will prepare a local neighbourhood renewal strategy, setting out a programme for change agreed with all key people and institutions with a stake in the area.

  Independent advice services were one group among the many that took part in the consultation, helping in the development of the national strategy.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Assembly (Vacancies)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his responsibilities in relation to vacancies among the membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the method proposed for filling the vacancy in Strangford. [145789]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Under Article 6 of the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998, vacancies can be filled without a by-election if a substitute has been nominated. In the absence of such a person the Chief Electoral Officer is required to inform the Presiding Officer of the need for a by-election.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nights on official business(a) he and (b) his Ministers spent in Northern Ireland in each month in 2000. [145196]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The details requested are contained in the following table:

  Nights spent in NI—2000

  Mr. Mandelson

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. Howarth

  January

  19

  8

  9

  February

  21

  11

  4

  March

  18

  8

  16

  April

  17

  6

  8

  May

  16

  10

  7

  342W

  Nights spent in NI—2000

  Mr. Mandelson

  Mr. Ingram

  Mr. Howarth

  June

  11

  4

  7

  July

  18

  9

  8

  August

  11

  9

  6

  September

  11

  8

  7

  October

  17

  12

  12

  November

  13

  6

  8

  December

  14

  7

  9

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times he used scheduled flights between Northern Ireland and Great Britain on official business during 2000. [145197]

  Mr. Mandelson
  As is the customary practice, during 2000 I did not use any scheduled flights between Northern Ireland and Great Britain for official business.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Missions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bar there is to people of any faith being appointed to be head of particular United Kingdom missions overseas; and if he will make a statement. [145347]

  Mr. Hain
  The only case in which a genuine occupational requirement restricts appointment to the position of head of mission is in the case of the annual temporary consular delegation to pilgrims performing the Hajj, where it is essential that all members of the mission should be Muslims. Otherwise, there is no bar to any appointment on religious grounds.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997 and what the total cost was to the Department of each publication. [141458]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 3 November 1999, Official Report, column 184W. The information requested has been placed in the Library. In addition, the 1999 and 2000 FCO departmental reports cost £18,628 and £17,520 respectively.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's spending on official publications was for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01; and what the planned expenditure is for 2001–02. [141454]
  343W
  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The spending on official publications by the Public Diplomacy (formerly Information) Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was:

  Year

  £

  1997–97

  1,893,549.68

  1997–98

  3,498,496.81

  1998–99

  1,995,989.46

  1999–2000

  1,802,149.88

  2000–01

  1,187,492.16

  2001–02

  11,516,345.00

  1 Estimated

  This does not include any staff costs.

  Colombia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the EU aid package to Colombia will ensure that humanitarian assistance is brought to internally displaced communities. [145362]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: EU assistance for the peace process in Colombia of 105 million euro over the period 2000–06 will support human rights, long-term economic and social development and an end to violence.

  The EU has stated that particular attention should be paid to, among others, victims of violence. We are very concerned at the levels of displacement within Colombian society and we will continue to do all we can to ensure that displaced people are included in the EU package of support. The UK has supported a number of projects among the displaced over recent years, both bilaterally and through the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and the UNHCR office in Bogota.

  Kumbh Mela
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department has taken to support Hindu pilgrims from the United Kingdom attending the Kumbh Mela. [145912]

  Mr. Hain
  Consular staff in London and India are on standby to provide such assistance as may be required by British visitors to the Kumbh Mela festival, which has traditionally been a trouble-free event.

  Burma
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EU/ASEAN meeting, with particular reference to Burma. [144033]

  Mr. Battle
  I attended the EU-ASEAN ministerial meeting in Vientiane on 11–12 December when we had a full and frank discussion on Burma. EU and ASEAN Ministers lent their full support to the efforts of Mr. Razali, UN Special Envoy on Burma, and there have since been encouraging reports that Aung San Suu Kyi and the regime have established initial contracts. The Burmese authorities also publicly committed themselves at the Vientiane meeting to allowing the forthcoming 344W
  EU Troika mission full access to Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition groups. This visit will take place on 29–31 January.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on beef prices in the United Kingdom of decisions by other EU countries to restrict the import of French beef. [144322]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I do not anticipate that restrictions on the import of French beef introduced by some EU member states will have a significant effect on UK market prices. UK beef prices firmed during December and are currently about 2.5 per cent. down on this time last year. During November 2000 prices were around 10 per cent. down on the same time the previous year.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the loss of income to British farmers consequent on the French Government's ban on the import of beef cattle from Britain. [145879]

  Ms Quin
  No additional loss of income arises as a result of the French ban on live beef cattle from the UK because the export of live cattle is also banned under EU rules. However, British farmers will have suffered a loss of income as a result of the French ban on British beef produced in accordance with the EU approved Date Based Export Scheme (DBES). Exact amounts cannot be quantified. It is necessary to take into account the difficulties in operating DBES and changes in exchange rates, but France was previously the largest export market for british beef and the French ban is likely to have affected the confidence of potential customers in other countries.

  Farming (Somerset)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) pig units, (b) dairy units and (c) poultry units there were in (i) Somerset and (ii) Yeovil constituency in (A) 1980–81, (B) 1990–91, (C) 1995–96, (D) 1998–99 and (E) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [144585]

  Ms Quin
  The information available is provided in the table.

  Number of holdings

  1981

  1991

  1996

  1999

  2000

  Somerset

  Holdings with cattle

  2,295

  1,685

  1,422

  1,289

  1,214

  Holdings with pigs

  697

  463

  350

  372

  334

  Holdings with poultry

  n/a

  1,114

  1,005

  1,020

  948

  Yeovil parliamentary constituency

  Holdings with cattle

  —

  —

  —

  182

  —

  Holdings with pigs

  —

  —

  —

  51

  —

  Holdings with poultry

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  —

  Note:

  Parliamentary constituency data are only available from 1999. The 2000 data will be available by the end of April 2001.

  Source:

  June agricultural and horticultural census.

  The data relate to main holdings only, i.e. minor holdings excluded.

  Farmers (Suicides and Bankruptcies)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest figures on(a) farming suicides and (b) farm bankruptcies. [145781]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: (a) The latest figures on farming suicides were provided in a written response to my hon. Friend on 27 November 2000, Official Report, columns 399–400W.

  We are very concerned about the high incidence of stress and suicide among farmers. We are closely involved with a number of organisations working to alleviate the level of stress in rural areas as my previous reply indicated.

  (b) Data on bankruptcies in the agricultural and horticultural sector in England and Wales are given in the table. These data correct figures for 1999 previously given in the answer of 13 November 2000, Official Report, column 461W and 20 November 2000, Official Report, column 63W.

  Figures for the first two quarters of 2000 show a decrease in total farming bankruptcies of 15 per cent. compared with the same period in 1999. the current level of bankruptcies is 40 per cent. lower than in 1992 and represents 0.1 per cent. of the farming industry1. Bankruptcy is a last resort and most fanners leaving the industry as a result of financial pressure do so in an orderly manner by selling up and realising their assets.

  Number of bankruptcies2 in the agricultural and horticultural sector: England and Wales 1990–2000

  Year

  Bankruptcies of self-employed individuals

  Company insolvencies3

  Total

  1990

  198

  111

  309

  1991

  266

  135

  401

  1992

  313

  191

  504

  1993

  277

  157

  434

  1994

  231

  166

  397

  1995

  218

  99

  317

  1996

  168

  89

  257

  1997

  155

  51

  206

  1998

  157

  65

  222

  1999

  183

  75

  258

  2000

  88

  31

  4,5119

  1 Based on the number of holdings in the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  2 Source—Department of Trade and Industry

  3 Including Partnerships

  4 First two quarters only

  5 Third quarter bankruptcy data will be available on 2 February 2001

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) his Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142715]
  346W
  Ms Quin
  Detailed data relating to advertising campaigns, undertaken by MAFF for years since 1996–97 are available only at disproportionate cost. However, the following represents the best available information about apportionment of funding to advertising activity for the years in question. For the year 1999–2000 to date, total media costs are shown as a single figure.

  £

  1996–97

  Rabies

  138,000

  Personal imports

  134,000

  Total

  272,000

  1997–98

  Cattle passports

  8,000

  Personal imports

  102,000

  National Science week

  2,000

  IACS

  7,000

  Sheep scab

  22,000

  Livestock markets (animal welfare)

  22,000

  Cattle traceability

  54,000

  Food safety

  176,000

  Miscellaneous

  30,000

  Total

  423,000

  1998–99

  Clean livestock

  10,000

  Equine viral arthritis

  3,000

  TB in badgers

  4,000

  Livestock markets (animal welfare)

  40,000

  Science in practice

  8,000

  Personal imports

  166,000

  BSE

  29,000

  Cattle passports

  34,000

  Food safety

  850,000

  Total

  1,144,000

  1999–20001

  Recruitment

  4,000

  Animal Health

  7,000

  Environment

  6,000

  Pet travel scheme

  98,000

  Miscellaneous

  21,000

  Media costs attributable to 1999 campaigns to date

  771,000

  Total

  907,000

  1 To date

  Advertising is usually a limited part of a campaign strategy. It has therefore not been subject to specific evaluation as a general rule. However, the recent Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) campaign was evaluated: to monitor awareness of the scheme; to monitor awareness of the advertising; and to assess whether the campaigns intended messages had been communicated. Overall, those objectives were considered to have been achieved.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of farmland was farmed organically in each of the last five years(a) nationally and (b) in the region that includes the Lewes constituency; and

  347W
  what support his Department is giving to support an expansion of organic farming (i) nationally and (ii) in the region that includes the Lewes constituency. [145387]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The percentage of farmland farmed organically in each of the last five years in the UK is as follows:

  Percentage

  2000

  2.77

  1999

  0.47

  1998

  0.32

  1997

  0.30

  1996

  0.28

  Equivalent figures for the English regions are not readily available.

  Species of primates

  Number of primates1

  Origin

  Expiry date

  1 Licence

  Rhesus Macaca Mulatta

  12

  Germany

  5 March 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  6 March 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  6 March 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  6 March 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  100

  Mauritius

  27 May 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  60

  Mauritius

  10 June 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  60

  Mauritius

  10 June 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  60

  Mauritius

  10 June 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  60

  Mauritius

  10 June 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  60

  Mauritius

  10 June 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  2

  China

  24 April 2001

  1 Licence

  Cynomolgus Macaca Fascicularis

  60

  China

  1 May 2001

  1 Licences for imports are often requested in round numbers. The numbers quoted do not imply the numbers which will actually be imported.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by when he expects his Department to have distributed all the early payments of the suckler cow premium to farmers. [145920]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 8 January 2001,Official Report, columns 454–55W.

  Farmers (Tractor Driving)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to oppose EU proposals to limit the tractor driving time for farmers. [144262]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I support the Government's policy on the Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive on the need to have a realistic and balanced approach to avoid damage to the health of workers, including farmers and their employees, through the effects of excessive vibration, while permitting them
  348W
  The Organic Farming Scheme, which forms part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), provides aid to farmers wishing to convert to organic farming. The budget for the scheme over the life of the ERDP is £140 million. In addition, the Organic Conversion Information Service (OCIS), which is funded by MAFF, provides free advice to farmers considering conversion.

  Animal Research (Importation Licences)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current importation licences which permit the import of non-human primates into the United Kingdom for use in research, indicating for each licence, broken down by species,(a) the number of non-human primates involved, (b) the origin of the primates and (c) the expiry date of the licence; and if he will make a statement. [145376]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The figures requested are detailed in the table:

  to carry on their business. Following my raising concerns in the Agriculture Council about the unjustifiably heavy regulatory burden which the German Presidency's original proposals would have imposed on farmers, the Employment and Social Policy Council has unanimously reached a compromise political agreement which provides for a more realistic limit on whole-body vibration exposure and a lengthy transition period for agriculture.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to make a formal application for agrimonetary compensation for farmers in the dairy, beef, sheep and cereal sectors this year. [145092]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: We are awaiting the publication of figures for possible agrimonetary compensation by the European Commission. We then have until 30 April to decide whether to apply for any compensation.
  349W
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from the National Farmers Union of Scotland about agrimonetary compensation. [145090]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The last representations made were in October in respect of agrimonetary aid available for the arable sector. The Government announced on 2 November that the full amount of £34 million would be paid, subject to Commission approval. We hope to receive such approval soon.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the fund for decommissioning UK fishing vessels was spent(a) up to May 1997, (b) between May 1997 and December 2000 and (c) remains available. [145577]

  Mr. Morley
  There was no individual fund for decommissioning UK fishing vessels covering the whole of this period. However, £26.4 million was spent up to May 1997, and £13.9 million between May 1997 and December 2000.

  Nephrops
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional support is being made available to fishing communities adversely affected by cuts to total allocated catches and quotas for nephrops. [145571]

  Mr. Morley
  Fisheries Departments in England and the devolved Administrations are making more than £60 million available over the next three years under the EU fisheries structural fund. We will be holding discussions with fishing industry representatives over the coming weeks to consider what additional measures are necessary to assist fishing communities including the recovery of North sea stocks.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect since 1999 of United Kingdom measures against quota hopping in respect of(a) the quantity of quota stocks landed in UK ports by foreign owned UK flagged vessels and (b) additional quota being available to the UK inshore fleet. [145574]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 14 November 2000,Official Report, column 625W.

  Foreign Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many foreign owned fishing vessels were on the UK register(a) in May 1997 and (b) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [145575]

  Mr. Morley
  Comprehensive information about the beneficial ownership of UK fishing vessels is no longer maintained by the Registry of Fishing and Seamen.350W
  However, based on advice from local port offices of the Fisheries Departments in the UK, we estimate that there were more than 160 wholly or partly foreign owned fishing vessels in the UK fleet at the end of 1996 and that this number had fallen to 115 by June 2000.

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government will raise the limits on the number of overseas seasonal farm workers entering this country under approved schemes. [144324]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  I announced last November that the Government will be increasing the quota of non-European Economic Area (EEA) students participating in the seasonal agricultural worker scheme (SAWS) from 10,000 to 15,200 with effect from the 2001 season.

WALES

  Adoption
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is being taken as a result of the establishment of an Adoption Register for England and Wales to ensure that Welsh-speaking children are placed in Welsh-speaking families. [146026]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Adoption Register for England and Wales will be operated in accordance with National Adoption Standards for England, Scotland and Wales, a consultation draft of which has recently been published, in Wales, by the National Assembly. The draft standards specifically recognise the importance, when making decisions, of respecting and considering children's ethnic origin, cultural background, religion and language.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of adopted Welsh-speaking children have been placed in Welsh-speaking homes in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [145998]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  That information is not held centrally.

  Landlords
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had about the introduction of further legislation to control the activities of unscrupulous landlords; and if he will make a statement. [146017]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with Whitehall colleagues and the Assembly to discuss a wide range of issues including housing matters.

  The Government are committed to introducing a national mandatory licensing scheme, which aims to provide safe, acceptable living conditions without reducing the supply of private rented accommodation. The licensing proposals include changing the legal definition of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) to bring many more properties into the ambit of registration (including most student accommodation). The proposals will be introduced at the earliest parliamentary opportunity. The primary legislation will be on an England and Wales basis

  351W
  but the National Assembly would have the opportunity to influence the direction of licensing in Wales through secondary legislative powers.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission a study of the implications and practicality of replacing the Barnett Formula with a needs based formula for resource distribution within the UK. [146020]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There are no current plans to review the Barnett Formula.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the mechanisms and systems available for people suffering from social exclusion in Wales and seek to ensure that the outcome of this review is taken into account in the formulation of the Government' s legislative programme. [146015]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Welsh Affairs Select Committee has recently undertaken an inquiry into this area. Their report, "Social Exclusion in Wales" [HC 365–1], which was published on 15 January, makes a wide range of detailed recommendations.

  The Government are considering the report very carefully and will respond to it in due course.

  ASW/Co Steel
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with ASW/Co Steel with respect to(a) climate levy assistance, (b) rate reduction and (c) financial assistance. [146048]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met representatives of the company in June 2000, when we discussed a range of issues, and I am aware of their concerns. I understand that the company has also had discussions with officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and of the National Assembly for Wales, who are responsible for rates and local government finance issues in Wales.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the applications by G. P. Hinduja and S. P. Hinduja for British citizenship from(a) the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and (b) the hon.. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). [143393]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the applications for naturalisation made by Mr. G. P. Hinduja and Mr. S. P. Hinduja. Both Members to whom he referred, along with other hon. Members, made inquiries about the cases.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) made inquiries about when a decision could be expected in the cases, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) made inquiries about how an
  352W
  application might be viewed given the Government's wider policy of encouraging citizenship from long-standing residents who fulfilled the criteria, but did not make representations that an application be granted.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have requested to see the files held on them by the security and intelligence services under the Data Protection Act 1998 and European Data Protection Directive 1995: and if he will make a statement. [145435]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service has received 46 requests under the Data Protection Act 1998: no requests have been recorded under the 1995 European Community Data Protection Directive.

  The other two intelligence and security agencies come under the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Cook), and his Department has provided the following figures:
  for the Government Communications Headquarters—15 requests under the Data Protection Act 1998; and
  for the Secret Intelligence Service—30 requests under the Data Protection Act 1998.

  No requests under the 1995 European Community Data Protection Directive have been recorded by either agency.

  A request by someone to see any file held on him or her is not in itself an indication as to whether such a file exists or has existed.

  North Yorkshire Police
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving police officers there were in the North Yorkshire police force on(a) 1 May 1997, (b) 1 May 1999 and (c) 1 January 2001. [145601]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information about police numbers is collected twice a year on 31 March and 30 September. The table therefore sets out police numbers for 31 March 1997 and 1999 and for 30 September 2000.

  North Yorkshire Police

  Year

  Number of officers

  31 March 1997

  1,338

  31 March 1999

  1,337

  30 September 2000

  1,293

  With funding from the crime fighting fund, North Yorkshire police will be able to recruit 68 police officers over three years from 2000–01 to 2002–03, over an above the number they had otherwise planned to recruit in that period.

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to improve links between ethnic minorities and the North Wales police. [145393]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Responsibility for improving links with minority ethnic communities lies with individual chief officers of police. The ministerial priority
  353W
  to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set the police service underlines the importance which the Government attach to this.

  A key element of the programme of work set out in our action plan to take forward the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry focuses on improved links between the minority ethnic community and the police and provides an agenda for action by forces. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary inspection reports on police community relations, "Winning the Race", "Winning the Race Revisited" and "Winning the Race Embracing Diversity", the latter published on 18 January, also contain a number of recommendations on the work that forces should be undertaking to improve links with the minority ethnic community. The Home Office's policing and reducing crime unit report, "Widening Access: Improving Police Relations with Hard to Reach Groups", also published on 18 January, puts forward suggestions for good practice in improving relations with the community, particularly on consultation.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions for drink driving offences were made in the North Wales police area in(a) 1999, (b) 1994 and (c) 1997. [145391]

  Table A: Number of persons prosecuted at magistrates courts for sexual offences against children aged 16 years and under, 1990–95 England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Prosecutions

  Offences

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  327

  300

  329

  294

  345

  125

  16

  —

  —

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  25

  24

  27

  15

  21

  6

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male of a male under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  66

  107

  124

  140

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  6

  5

  2

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male with a female under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  26

  35

  19

  23

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 171

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  570

  522

  457

  432

  449

  400

  325

  373

  460

  432

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 182

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  9

  30

  23

  19

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 182

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Rape of a female aged under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  336

  477

  592

  698

  714

  Rape of a male aged under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  20

  45

  49

  63

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  44

  74

  60

  60

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  5

  3

  9

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  2,285

  2,138

  2,005

  1,896

  2,036

  1,797

  1,604

  1,639

  1–805

  1,818

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  146

  155

  112

  97

  88

  77

  40

  40

  40

  32

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  292

  254

  254

  189

  202

  195

  164

  153

  171

  199

  Incest with a girl under 13

  111

  80

  50

  52

  41

  22

  26

  14

  17

  12

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  1

  1

  2

  2

  5

  3

  2

  7

  1

  4

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  7

  3

  9

  8

  —

  4

  4

  3

  2

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  6

  4

  1

  354W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table gives the available information:

  Convictions for driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs in North Wales police area

  Number

  1994

  1,353

  1997

  1,354

  1999

  1,248

  Sex Offences
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) charged and (b) convicted of sex offences against minors in each year since 1990. [145560]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of persons charged is not collected centrally.

  Available information, taken from the Home Office court proceedings database showing the number of persons prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for relevant offences are given in the tables.

  It should be noted that it is not possible to identify all sexual offences where the victim is a minor.
  355W

  Table A: Number of persons prosecuted at magistrates courts for sexual offences against children aged 16 years and under, 1990–95 England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Prosecutions

  Offences

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  12

  20

  24

  13

  27

  11

  9

  6

  8

  8

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 and under

  156

  117

  131

  102

  87

  62

  61

  63

  112

  105

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 and under

  161

  122

  130

  155

  129

  109

  97

  109

  213

  225

  1 Buggery and attempted buggery offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 143

  2 Indecency between males offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 144

  3 Rape and attempted rape offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 142

  Table B: Number of persons convicted1 at all courts for sexual offences against children aged 16 years and under, 1990–95 England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Convictions1

  Offences

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  189

  168

  163

  136

  135

  86

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  18

  26

  17

  20

  16

  14

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male of a male under 162

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  66

  70

  57

  57

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  6

  7

  1

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Buggery by a male with a female under 162

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  17

  21

  23

  13

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  421

  351

  363

  293

  324

  339

  355

  363

  342

  337

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 183

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  11

  17

  18

  10

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 183

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Rape of a female aged under 164

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  113

  210

  198

  221

  247

  Rape of a male aged under 164

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  13

  24

  15

  37

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 164

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  35

  52

  41

  44

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 164

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  5

  14

  7

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  1,537

  1,469

  1,331

  1,205

  1,355

  1,446

  1,597

  1,627

  1,505

  1,491

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  110

  105

  89

  76

  64

  81

  54

  44

  55

  52

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  304

  223

  218

  170

  205

  203

  207

  199

  225

  189

  Incest with a girl under 13

  84

  68

  52

  51

  35

  21

  19

  19

  19

  13

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  3

  3

  3

  2

  4

  5

  —

  3

  —

  1

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  5

  1

  3

  6

  2

  3

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  6

  7

  3

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  8

  8

  12

  6

  9

  6

  3

  1

  4

  1

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 and under

  128

  91

  99

  80

  77

  56

  53

  56

  61

  73

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 and under

  148

  128

  129

  123

  112

  99

  109

  111

  153

  144

  1 Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences

  2 Buggery and attempted buggery offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 143

  3 Indecency between males offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 144

  4 Rape and attempted rape offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 1 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 142

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of children under the age of 16 years who have entered the UK as asylum 356W
  seekers (a) with parents and (b) on their own in each of the last three years. [145761]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of children under the age of 18 who have entered the United Kingdom as asylum
  357W
  seekers on their own is estimated at 1,105 in 1997, 3,040 in 1998 and 3,350 in 1999. Information for 2000 is not yet available.

  Reliable information on the number of children who have entered the United Kingdom as asylum seekers with their parents is not readily available and could only be obtained by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Armed Response Units
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to prevent members of police armed response units being identified in legal proceedings. [145358]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no such powers for the Secretary of State. In any legal proceedings it would be for the court to consider whether any person should be granted anonymity. In an inquest that would be a matter for the Coroner.

  Supervised Youth Facilities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of the availability of supervised youth facilities as an anti-crime and disorder measure; what has been the trend in the availability of such facilities over the past decade; and if he will make a statement. [145357]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Supervised youth facilities vary considerably, from youth clubs funded by the local authority through to schemes supported by volunteers in response to an identified local need. Information about the availability of such facilities is not collected centrally. It is accordingly not possible to offer a comprehensive assessment of trends in availability over time.

  We know that provision of good facilities for young people can reduce crime and disorder. This is why the Government launched the youth inclusion programme in September 1999, targeting in particular disaffected young people and those at the greatest risk of offending in the 13 to 16 age group. We expect to have 68 youth inclusion projects up and running by March, which will provide a dynamic package of activities for young people. The programme objectives are to reduce arrest rates in the target group by 60 per cent. reduce recorded crime in the programme areas by 30 per cent. and achieve reduction of at least one third in truancy and school exclusions among the target group by 2002.

  Closed Circuit Television (Gedling)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the bid by Gedling crime prevention partnership for the latest round of CCTV funding; and when he will make an announcement. [145532]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All outline bids submitted by local crime and disorder reduction partnerships under the latest round of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) initiative, including those from the Gedling crime prevention partnership, are currently under consideration. Partnerships will be notified as soon as possible if their bids have been selected to proceed to the final application stage.

  Drug Misuse (Prisons)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision on Wyner and Brock on(a) Ministers', (b) his Department's officials' and (c) prison governors' responsibility for policy and management of prisons. [145448]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Ruth Wyner and John Brock, managers of the Wintercomfort day centre for the homeless in Cambridge, were convicted under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 because they were judged to have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent drug dealing on the premises for which they were responsible. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions. The Court of Appeal's decision confirms our understanding that section 8 applies to the owner or manager of any premises and has no new implications for Ministers or Home Office officials.

  In relation to prison governors, the Government recognise that drug misuse and the supply of drugs is a problem in some prisons. A comprehensive range of measures has been implemented to tackle the supply of drugs in prisons and prison governors operate an effective strategy for preventing, as far as possible, the supply of drugs in prison establishments. I refer the hon. Member to the debate on this subject that he introduced on 29 February 2000, Official Report, columns 17–24WH.

  Crime (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to improve co-operation between his Department, the National Assembly for Wales and local authorities in Wales in tackling crime in Wales. [146018]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I appointed 10 crime reduction directors last year, one of whom is based in the National Assembly for Wales. Their role is to build strong relationships with local crime and disorder reduction partnerships—of which there are 22 in Wales—helping the police, local authorities, probation service, health authorities and the voluntary and community sectors increase their joint effectiveness through guidance, training, best practice and monitoring crime reduction performance.

  Within Wales the crime reduction director also reports to the Assembly Minister for Local Government and through the Assembly Minister advises the Assembly's Local Government Committee; as well as having strong links with all parts of the Assembly civil service.

  Crime reduction directors now contribute to the development of Home Office crime reduction policies to ensure that the most effective local outcomes can be designed in from the start.

  Metropolitan Police
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many constables in the Metropolitan police force there were at the end of September 2000; and if he will make a statement. [145947]
  359W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At the end of September 2000 there were 18,981 full-time equivalent constables in the Metropolitan police service. This accounts for 71 per cent. of the total strength of the force.

  With funding from the crime fighting fund (CFF)— £454 million over the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03— forces will be able to recruit 9,000 police officers over and above the number they had otherwise planned to recruit in that period. 2,044 of the 9,000 have been allocated to the Metropolitan police—663 this year 699 in 2001–02 and 682 in 2002–03. All of these will enter the police service in the rank of constable.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which(a) directorate and (b) sub division of the Metropolitan police the police officer whose liaison with a member of the jury caused the abandonment of a recent High Court trial serves; and if he will make a statement. [145536]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the officer is a Metropolitan police uniform constable in(a) the borough of Redbridge at (b) Ilford Police Station.

  Metropolitan Police (Keith Green)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which papers have been lost in respect of the complaint made by Keith Green to the Police Complaints Authority; to which agency the loss is attributable; when the loss was discovered; and if he will make a statement. [145537]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the paper which has been lost is an internal copy of the final report of the investigation by the Metropolitan police service (MPS), which was submitted to the Police Complaints Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service and the loss was identified in the latter part of 2000. The information contained within the file is readily available from other sources within the MPS and a duplicate file has been made.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis, and for what amount, the Metropolitan police has made an out of court settlement to Keith Green. [145541]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has advised me that the judge ordered that there would be a confidentiality order on this settlement and that any disclosure of information would constitute contempt of court.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason Keith Green has been refused a copy of the notebook belonging to Superintendent Jarrett. [145539]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that they are unsure as to which particular notebook entry this question refers to. If it is the notebook containing an entry that relates to an incident which later became subject of a court case, the pocket book would have been copied and given to the defence team dealing with this case. If it is an entry that 360W
  relates to an internal matter only, the pocket book would not be available unless the pocket book subsequently became the subject of a disciplinary matter.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will appoint an officer from a force outside the Metropolitan Police to conduct an investigation into the complaints made by Keith Green; and if he will make a statement. [145538]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the complaints made by Keith Green are currently being investigated by the directorate of professional standards of the Metropolitan police service. At this stage, he considers that it is unnecessary for an outside force to be appointed to conduct the investigation.

  Metropolitan Police (John Redgrave)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the disciplinary hearing of John Redgrave will be conducted by the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement. [145540]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that a two-day preliminary hearing has been set for 8 and 9 March 2001, and that John Redgrave is aware of this.

  Stray Horses
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communications his Department has had with(a) Essex Police Authority, (b) Essex Fire Brigade and (c) Thurrock Borough Council about hazards presented by horses straying on to the highway. [146101]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No communications, other than those necessary to establish the background to this question, have taken place.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences punishable by a fine at(a) level one, (b) level two, (c) level three, (d) level four and (e) level five on the standard scale. [146040]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be produced in that form only at disproportionate cost. However, I am placing in the Library a copy of a booklet entitled "Criminal Statistics, Volume III, Part 1, Appendix 1, Part 1, For Court Proceedings and Cautions—2001 CODES" which lists, for each offence separately identified, the maximum sentence in both magistrates courts and the Crown court. The document does not list all offences since many, mainly summary, offences are grouped and their maximum sentences are not, therefore, separately identifiable.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the most recent year for which figures are available, the number of convictions for each criminal offence which were punished by fine at level(a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four, and (e) five on the standard scale. [146041]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Limited available data, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database are given in the table.
  361W
  Offences are grouped together by using the main Home Office classification definition, as produced within the more detailed "Criminal statistics, England and Wales,

  Number of offenders fined for all offences at all courts by offence and amount of fine, England and Wales, 1999

  Amount of fine

  Offence description

  Up to and including £200

  Over £200 and up to and including £500

  Over £500 and up to and including £1,000

  Over £1,000 and up to and including £2,500

  Over £2,500 and up to and including £5,000

  Over £5,000

  Total fined

  3. Threat or Conspiracy to Murder

  8

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  14

  4–4. Causing Death by Dangerous Driving

  —

  1

  3

  —

  2

  —

  6

  5. Wounding or other Act Endangering Life

  25

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  6. Endangering Railway Passenger

  3

  8

  1

  1

  —

  —

  13

  7. Endangering Life at Sea

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  8. Other Wounding etc.

  3,496

  766

  83

  23

  1

  —

  4,369

  11. Cruelty to or Neglect of Children

  8

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  9

  12. Abandoning Child aged under Two Years

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  13. Child Abduction

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  16. Buggery

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  17. Indecent Assault on a Male

  4

  8

  —

  1

  —

  —

  13

  18. Indecency between males

  40

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  49

  20. Indecent Assault on a Female

  33

  44

  2

  —

  —

  —

  79

  21. Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Girl under 13

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  22. Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Girl under 16

  3

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  23. Incest

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  24. Procuration

  4

  2

  3

  —

  2

  —

  11

  26. Bigamy

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  27. Soliciting by a Man

  9

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  28. Burglary in a Dwelling

  223

  52

  3

  2

  —

  —

  280

  30. Burglary in a Building Other than a Dwelling

  684

  127

  8

  2

  —

  —

  821

  33. Going equipped for stealing, etc.

  343

  22

  1

  1

  —

  —

  367

  34. Robbery

  8

  2

  2

  1

  —

  1

  14

  36. Kidnapping, etc.

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  37–2. Aggravated Vehicle Taking

  140

  46

  4

  1

  —

  —

  191

  39. Theft from the Person of Another

  731

  76

  7

  2

  —

  —

  816

  40. Theft in Dwelling not Automatic M/c or Meter

  158

  8

  2

  —

  —

  —

  168

  41. Theft by an Employee

  321

  81

  4

  1

  1

  —

  408

  42. Theft or Unauthorised Taking from Mail

  21

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  43 Abstracting Electricity

  236

  17

  3

  1

  1

  —

  258

  44. Theft of Pedal Cycle

  256

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  264

  45. Theft from Vehicle

  908

  48

  1

  —

  —

  —

  957

  46. Theft from Shops

  21,078

  428

  19

  4

  —

  —

  21,529

  47. Theft from Automatic Machine or Meter

  118

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  124

  48. Theft or Unauthorised Taking of Motor Vehicle

  137

  16

  1

  —

  —

  —

  154

  49. Other Theft or Unauthorised Taking

  3,730

  227

  15

  —

  1

  1

  3,974

  52. False Accounting

  84

  38

  5

  —

  1

  4

  132

  53. Other Fraud

  2,541

  252

  37

  11

  7

  —

  2,848

  54. Handling Stolen Goods

  2,568

  329

  41

  11

  8

  1

  2,958

  55. Bankruptcy Offence

  6

  20

  12

  4

  2

  1

  45

  56. Arson

  25

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  57. Criminal Damage Endangering Life

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  58. Other Criminal Damage

  1,615

  135

  9

  —

  1

  1

  1,761

  59. Threat etc., to commit Criminal Damage

  65

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  71

  60. Forgery etc. of Drug Prescription

  22

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  27

  61. Other Forgery etc.

  354

  87

  11

  6

  1

  1

  460

  65. Violent Disorder

  15

  16

  7

  —

  —

  —

  38

  66. Other Offence against the State or Public Order

  594

  304

  48

  11

  5

  —

  962

  67. Perjury

  8

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  14

  74. Gross Indecency with Children

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  75. Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

  8

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  13

  79. Perverting the Course of Justice

  46

  20

  8

  1

  —

  1

  76

  80. Absconding from Lawful Custody

  7

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  81. Firearms Act Offence

  305

  95

  17

  2

  —

  —

  419

  82. Revenue Law Offence

  2

  7

  4

  4

  1

  —

  18

  83. Failing to Surrender to Bail

  15,982

  33

  4

  —

  —

  —

  16,019

  84. Trade Descriptions Act and Similar Offences

  248

  244

  118

  68

  29

  4

  711

  85. Health and Safety at Work etc, Act 1974

  37

  102

  125

  208

  194

  242

  908

  86. Possession of Obscene Material etc.

  74

  35

  17

  3

  1

  —

  130

  87. Protection from Eviction Act 1977

  3

  3

  —

  2

  2

  —

  10

  89. Adulteration of Food

  45

  82

  42

  30

  19

  11

  229

  91. Public Health

  175

  164

  94

  92

  51

  25

  601

  362W
  Supplementary tables", a copy of which I have placed in the Library. To try to identify by individual offence would be disproportionate to cost.
  363W

  Number of offenders fined for all offences at all courts by offence and amount of fine, England and Wales, 1999

  Amount of fine

  Offence description

  Up to and including £200

  Over £200 and up to and including £500

  Over £500 and up to and including £1,000

  Over £1,000 and up to and including £2,500

  Over £2,500 and up to and including £5,000

  Over £5,000

  Total fined

  94. Town and Country Planning Act 1990

  63

  72

  43

  31

  22

  4

  235

  99. Other (Excluding Motoring Offences)

  268

  218

  114

  129

  69

  43

  841

  99A. Dangerous Driving

  359

  325

  109

  17

  2

  —

  812

  99B. Fraud, Forgery etc. associated with Vehicle or Driver Records

  3,161

  339

  43

  9

  1

  —

  3.553

  a. Unlawful importation of Drugs-Class A

  13

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  15

  b. Unlawful importation of Drugs-Class B

  28

  11

  2

  —

  —

  —

  41

  c. Unlawful importation of Drugs-Class C

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  d. Unlawful importation of Drugs-Class unspecified

  25

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  29

  e. Unlawful exportation of Drugs-Class A

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  f. Unlawful exportation of Drugs-Class B

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  h. Unlawful exportation of Drugs-Class unspecified

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  i. Production, supply and possession with intent to supply a controlled drug-Class A

  70

  29

  2

  2

  1

  —

  104

  j. Production, supply etc.-Class B

  747

  106

  28

  6

  1

  —

  888

  k. Production, supply etc.-Class C

  8

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  1. Production, supply etc.-Class unspecified

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  6

  m. Possession of a controlled drug-Class A

  3,677

  542

  26

  12

  1

  —

  4,258

  n. Possession of a controlled drug-Class B

  17,194

  327

  17

  1

  —

  —

  17,539

  o. Possession of a controlled drug-Class C

  66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66

  p. Possession of a controlled drug-Class unspecified

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  q. Other drug offences

  194

  18

  —

  1

  —

  —

  213

  101. Adulteration of Food, Drug, etc.

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5

  104. Assault on Constable

  3,836

  288

  18

  1

  —

  —

  4,143

  105. Common assault, etc.

  4,501

  753

  41

  11

  —

  —

  5,306

  106. Betting or Gaming Offence

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  107. Brothel Keeping

  6

  12

  4

  1

  —

  —

  23

  108. Cruelty to Animal

  332

  113

  37

  17

  6

  —

  505

  110. Diseases of Animals Act

  15

  13

  11

  2

  2

  —

  43

  111. Offences Relating to Dogs

  635

  17

  2

  2

  —

  —

  656

  112. Education Acts

  3,659

  199

  20

  —

  —

  —

  3,878

  113. Explosives Acts

  6

  8

  2

  1

  2

  —

  19

  115. Firearms Acts

  151

  30

  4

  3

  —

  —

  88

  116. Fishery Acts

  2,563

  41

  6

  5

  —

  3

  2,618

  117. Friendly Societies Acts

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  118. Night Poaching

  33

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  36

  119. Day Poaching

  207

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  241

  120. Unlawful Possession of Game, etc.

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  121. Other Offence against Game Law

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  122. Obstruction Other than by Vehicle

  660

  40

  5

  1

  —

  —

  706

  123. Nuisance Other than by Vehicle

  1,674

  11

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1,689

  124. Other Highways Act Offence

  179

  54

  8

  —

  —

  —

  241

  125. Public Order Act 1986

  15,401

  1,105

  48

  4

  2

  1

  16,561

  126. Interference with Motor Vehicles

  508

  38

  1

  —

  —

  —

  547

  130. Unauthorised Taking of a Conveyance

  928

  113

  6

  —

  —

  1

  1,048

  131. Summary Aggravated Vehicle Taking

  80

  30

  1

  —

  —

  —

  111

  135. Horsedrawn Vehicle

  30

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  36

  136. Handcart or Barrow

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  137. Pedal Cycle

  967

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  972

  139 Indecent Exposure

  97

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  122

  140. Drunkenness, Simple

  2,631

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,640

  141. Drunkenness, with Aggravation

  19,798

  39

  5

  4

  1

  2

  19,849

  142. Offence by Licensed Person, etc.

  182

  78

  8

  1

  —

  —

  269

  143. Other Offence against the Liquor Law

  91

  21

  7

  3

  —

  —

  122

  144. Selling Tobacco to Juvenile

  66

  24

  4

  3

  —

  —

  97

  147 Employment of Children Acts

  56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  56

  148. Other Offence against the Labour Law

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  149. Summary Criminal or Malicious Damage Offence

  7,606

  375

  7

  2

  —

  —

  7,990

  150. Merchant Shipping Acts

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  151. Social Security Offence

  1,216

  188

  17

  6

  —

  —

  1,427

  152. Social Security Act

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  153. Military Law-Army

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  155. Military Law-Air Force

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  156. Park, Common or Other Open Space Offence

  731

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  736

  160. Pedlars Act

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95

  161. Certain Local regulations-Allowing Chimney to be on Fire

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  364W 365W

  Number of offenders fined for all offences at all courts by offence and amount of fine, England and Wales, 1999

  Amount of fine

  Offence description

  Up to and including £200

  Over £200 and up to and including £500

  Over £500 and up to and including £1,000

  Over £1,000 and up to and including £2,500

  over £2,500 and up to and including £5,000

  Over £5,000

  Total fined

  162. Disorderly Behaviour

  1,258

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,263

  163. Playing in Street

  120

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  125

  164. Other Offence

  4,305

  185

  31

  3

  3

  —

  4,527

  165. Kerb Crawling

  513

  110

  —

  —

  —

  —

  623

  166. Offence by Prostitute

  2,880

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,887

  167. Aiding, etc. Offence by Prostitute

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  168. Public Health Offence

  850

  340

  134

  70

  41

  6

  1,441

  169. Railway Offence

  14,428

  206

  5

  2

  —

  1

  14,642

  170. Motor Vehicle Licence

  140,878

  14,745

  699

  74

  37

  9

  156,442

  172. Other Offence Against Revenue Law

  5,095

  949

  62

  20

  9

  1

  6,136

  173. Stage Carriage or Public Service Vehicle Offence

  6,354

  150

  16

  1

  —

  1

  6,522

  179. Sunday Trading, etc.

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  181. Unlawful Possession

  11

  11

  3

  1

  1

  —

  27

  182. Begging

  1,300

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,301

  183. Sleeping Out

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  185. Found in Enclosed Premises

  160

  5

  1

  1

  —

  —

  167

  188. Other Vagrancy Offences

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  189. Weights and Measures Acts

  34

  14

  6

  4

  1

  —

  59

  190. Wild Birds Protection Acts

  46

  56

  5

  2

  —

  —

  109

  191. Wireless Telegraphy Acts

  48,746

  5,982

  66

  —

  1

  9

  54,804

  192. Video Recording Act 1984

  14

  11

  5

  3

  3

  —

  36

  193. Drug Offence

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  194. Immigration Offence

  6

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  11

  195. Other Summary Offence (Excluding Motoring)

  9,567

  910

  221

  119

  36

  15

  10,868

  All summary motoring offences

  435,173

  103,106

  25,756

  1,107

  62

  54

  565,258

  of which:

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs:

  34,535

  24,436

  2,946

  364

  16

  1

  62,298

  Careless driving:

  31,203

  3,126

  131

  12

  2

  —

  34,474

  Accident offences:

  4,071

  876

  36

  —

  —

  1

  4,984

  Driving licence related offences:

  13,665

  718

  117

  25

  4

  7

  14,536

  Vehicle insurance offences:

  98,958

  36,308

  17,568

  411

  8

  17

  153,270

  Vehicle registration and excise licence offences:

  8,523

  653

  35

  12

  5

  6

  9,234

  Work record and employment offences:

  3,714

  1,215

  231

  19

  6

  —

  5,185

  Operator's licence offences:

  552

  651

  275

  4

  —

  1

  1,483

  Vehicle test offences:

  19,797

  147

  31

  6

  2

  —

  19,983

  Vehicle or part in dangerous or defective condition:

  12,755

  852

  182

  32

  3

  1

  13,825

  Speed limit offences:

  118,262

  24.099

  2,534

  17

  7

  13

  144,932

  Motorway offences (other than speeding):

  1,180

  157

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1,340

  Neglect of traffic directions:

  23,844

  1,112

  71

  1

  1

  182

  25,029

  Neglect of pedestrian rights:

  4,044

  59

  2

  —

  —

  —

  4,105

  Obstruction, waiting and parking offences:

  13,538

  352

  84

  1

  1

  1

  13,977

  Lighting offences:

  3,762

  22

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3,786

  Noise offences:

  984

  13

  1

  —

  —

  —

  998

  Load offences:

  5,135

  3,097

  1,438

  187

  2

  3

  9,862

  Offences peculiar to Motor Cycles:

  172

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  172

  Miscellaneous motoring offences:

  36,479

  5,213

  69

  16

  5

  3

  41,785

  Total all offences

  824,228

  136,485

  28,445

  2, 82

  637

  443

  992,420

  Note:

  For any given year it is not possible to eliminate all of the errors on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database. Hence the table may show offenders receiving fines in excess of the maximum sentence possible for the offences covered by a particular offence classification.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the levels of crime in Somerset were for each of the years 1979 to 2000, broken down by the major categories of notifiable offences; and in each case what the clear-up rate was. [144647]

  Recorded crimes—Somerset

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1997–981

  1998–991 (old rules)

  1998–991,2 (new rules)

  1999–20001

  Violence against person

  1,337

  1,746

  1,938

  2,183

  2,514

  2,872

  3,004

  3,598

  3,592

  Sexual offences

  229

  255

  310

  252

  282

  320

  251

  249

  205

  Burglary dwell.

  4,027

  3,492

  3,796

  4,033

  3,106

  3,116

  2,626

  2,623

  2,955

  366W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested, for part of a police force area, is not held centrally. The details given in the tables have been provided by the Avon and Somerset constabulary, and are available for the years from 1993 onwards.
  367W

  Recorded crimes—Somerset

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1997–981

  1998–991 (old rules)

  1998–991.2 (new rules)

  1999–20001

  Burglary other

  6,163

  5,068

  4.544

  4,267

  4,301

  4,369

  4,205

  4,218

  4,309

  Robbery

  102

  114

  150

  146

  117

  135

  132

  133

  224

  Theft and handling

  22,288

  21,800

  20,401

  19.963

  18,419

  18,321

  16,676

  17,027

  16,822

  Fraud and forgery

  898

  898

  792

  884

  775

  753

  832

  899

  1,228

  Criminal damage

  5,241

  6,347

  5,877

  6,161

  5,537

  5,858

  6,333

  6,624

  6,596

  Drugs

  118

  170

  167

  127

  119

  123

  85

  599

  624

  Other

  78

  101

  85

  107

  91

  102

  177

  295

  296

  Somerset Total

  40,481

  39,991

  38.060

  38,117

  35,261

  35,969

  34,321

  36,265

  36,851

  Clear-ups rate of recorded crime—Somerset

  Percentage

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1997–981

  1998–991 (old rules)

  1998–991.2 (new rules)

  1999–20003

  Violence against person

  87

  82

  88

  88

  86

  84

  82

  82

  74

  Sexual offences

  79

  82

  84

  91

  74

  74

  77

  78

  72

  Burglary dwell.

  17

  23

  15

  19

  24

  25

  16

  16

  17

  Burglary other

  10

  13

  12

  13

  13

  13

  9

  9

  8

  Robbery

  34

  38

  36

  41

  32

  24

  25

  25

  20

  Theft and handling

  15

  16

  19

  19

  19

  17

  17

  17

  14

  Fraud and forgery

  49

  54

  53

  62

  53

  50

  58

  59

  36

  Criminal damage

  18

  17

  19

  21

  21

  21

  20

  19

  18

  Drugs

  104

  96

  101

  102

  92

  94

  99

  95

  96

  Other

  99

  94

  93

  98

  87

  83

  88

  76

  70

  Somerset Total

  19

  21

  23

  24

  25

  25

  24

  26

  23

  1 Year ending March

  2 Owing to the change in counting rules on 1 April 1998, figures before and after this date cannot be directly compared

  3 Owing to a change in the counting rules for clear-ups, figures before and after 1 April 1999 cannot be directly compared

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the incidence of crime in(a) rural and (b) urban areas since May 1997. [144618]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the question the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 404W, and to the reply given to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on 13 November 2000, Official Report, column 538W.

  The replies to these questions provide information derived from the British Crime Survey (BCS) on the level and trends in rural and urban crime. BCS incident rates for crime show that over the last decade there has been consistently less crime in rural areas than urban areas. The BCS also shows that between 1997 and 1999 crime has declined, in proportionate terms, at a similar or greater rate in rural areas than in other areas.

  BCS incident rates 1991–99 for burglary, vehicle-related thefts and violent crime

  1991

  1993

  1995

  1997

  1999

  Burglary incidents per 10,000 households

  Rural

  368

  481

  468

  429

  343

  Non-rural

  781

  976

  938

  859

  662

  Vehicle-related thefts per 10,000 vehicle owning households

  Rural

  1,660

  1,983

  2,052

  1,503

  1,207

  Non-rural

  2,912

  3,152

  3,006

  2,368

  1,947

  368W

  BCS incident rates 1991–99 for burglary, vehicle-related thefts and violent crime

  1991

  1993

  1995

  1997

  1999

  Violent crime incident rates per 10,000 adults

  Rural

  396

  511

  621

  597

  462

  Non-rural

  739

  1,017

  1,108

  887

  876

  Notes:

  For the purposes of BCS analyses, rural areas are identified by according ACORN—(A Classification of Residential Neighbourhoods) categories. ACORN classifies households according to the demographic, employment and housing characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhood. Rural areas are defined as those areas falling into Acorn types 1 to 9, and 27.

  Source:

  British Crime Survey 1992–2000.

  Tackling crime and the fear of crime in all areas, including rural areas, remains a high priority for this Government. Our approach in all areas is to assist the police and the local crime and disorder partnerships to address local crime effectively.

  The Home Office announced on 15 June 2000 that rural police forces were to benefit this year from an additional £15 million from the police modernisation fund. The money rises to £30 million next year, and is intended to help the police to meet the extra costs involved in policing rural areas. The money is in addition to the crime fighting fund, which is providing for an increase in police numbers across the board. It will make a real difference to the policing and crime reduction in rural districts, in particular by helping to increase the visibility of the police in those areas.
  369W
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the United Kingdom have been unlawfully killed since 1971; and if he will make a statement. [144624]

  Unlawful killings

  Year

  Homicide total

  Child destruction

  Causing death by reckless/dangerous driving1

  Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking

  Overall total

  1970

  393

  0

  685

  0

  1,078

  1971

  459

  1

  728

  0

  1,188

  1972

  476

  0

  753

  0

  1,229

  1973

  465

  1

  769

  0

  1,235

  1974

  600

  2

  654

  0

  1,256

  1975

  515

  0

  690

  0

  1,205

  1976

  565

  0

  595

  0

  1,160

  1977

  482

  1

  602

  0

  1,085

  1978

  532

  2

  313

  0

  847

  1979

  629

  2

  225

  0

  856

  1980

  620

  2

  235

  0

  857

  1981

  558

  1

  234

  0

  793

  1982

  618

  0

  269

  0

  887

  1983

  550

  0

  189

  0

  739

  1984

  621

  0

  223

  0

  844

  1985

  616

  1

  258

  0

  875

  1986

  661

  0

  232

  0

  893

  1987

  688

  2

  292

  0

  982

  1988

  624

  8

  339

  0

  971

  1989

  641

  2

  393

  0

  1,036

  1990

  669

  0

  419

  0

  1,088

  1991

  725

  2

  416

  0

  1,143

  1992

  687

  0

  277

  19

  983

  1993

  670

  3

  292

  17

  982

  1994

  726

  7

  278

  14

  1,025

  1995

  745

  8

  242

  21

  1,016

  1996

  679

  2

  320

  34

  1,035

  1997

  739

  5

  291

  12

  1,047

  1997–982

  748

  6

  325

  18

  1,097

  1998–992

  750

  9

  349

  30

  1,138

  1998–992

  765

  1

  317

  37

  1,120

  April-September 2000

  445

  0

  169

  23

  637

  1 From 1 December 1997, the offences which qualified as causing death by reckless driving were reduced.

  2 Years ending March

  Paddy Ashdown

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (as re-enacted by the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000) which came into effect on 1 December 1999, a mandatory prison sentence of three years minimum duration was introduced for third-time domestic burglary offenders.

  An offender would have to be apprehended, prosecuted and convicted on three separate occasions since 1 December 1999 to be subject to the mandatory sentence. Such action is likely to take some time.

  The Home Office's court proceedings databases for 1999 and for the first three-quarters of 2000 (which are provisional) show that no such sentences have yet been recorded.
  370W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested for England and Wales is given in the table and relates to numbers of recorded crimes. Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of notifiable offences were committed by young men between the ages of 14 and 24 years in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [144619]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of the number of notifiable offences committed by age and sex of offender are not available.

  However, information held centrally on the Home Office court proceedings database, showing the number of male offenders aged 14–24 who have been cautioned or convicted of indictable offences, is given in the table.

  Males aged 14–24 cautioned and or convicted at all courts for indictable offences: numbers and as a proportion of all offenders, England and Wales, 1997 to 1999

  Males aged 14–24

  Total all offenders

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1997

  223,606

  44

  509,411

  100

  1998

  228,349

  43

  533,456

  100

  1999

  218,665

  43

  512,574

  100

  371W
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) violent crime offences, (b) car crime offences, (c) robberies, (d) burglaries, (e) thefts and (f) criminal damage offences there were per 1,000 head of population for each police force area within England and Wales in each of the last three years. [144622]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The readily available information, for the calendar year 1997 and the financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000, is given in the tables. Owing to the change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, the figures for the first year given are not directly comparable with the latter two years. The change in counting rules for recorded crime particularly impacted on violence against the person, which is included in the violent crime category.

  Violent crime (violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery). Recorded offences per 100,000 population

  Police force

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  830

  1,014

  1,079

  Bedfordshire

  823

  1,026

  1,100

  Cambridgeshire

  584

  872

  980

  Cheshire

  468

  776

  675

  Cleveland

  609

  762

  769

  Cumbria

  644

  1,199

  1,107

  Derbyshire

  651

  991

  1,149

  Devon and Cornwall

  502

  844

  892

  Dorset

  372

  484

  584

  Durham

  396

  883

  968

  Essex

  382

  620

  749

  Gloucestershire

  371

  688

  871

  Greater Manchester

  847

  1,774

  1,982

  Hampshire

  554

  809

  988

  Hertfordshire

  335

  446

  509

  Humberside

  875

  1,237

  1,218

  Kent

  573

  897

  933

  Lancashire

  390

  855

  814

  Leicestershire

  739

  1,261

  1,397

  Lincolnshire

  566

  772

  701

  Merseyside

  784

  1,112

  1,294

  Metropolitan Police District1

  1,157

  2,186

  2,640

  Norfolk

  459

  790

  898

  Northamptonshire

  610

  982

  957

  Northumbria

  453

  1,033

  1,118

  North Yorkshire

  393

  718

  755

  Nottinghamshire

  993

  1,387

  1,588

  South Yorkshire

  472

  629

  719

  Staffordshire

  775

  1,055

  1,379

  Suffolk

  452

  655

  881

  Surrey

  394

  626

  775

  Sussex

  514

  1,117

  1,264

  Thames Valley

  416

  623

  788

  Warwickshire

  327

  482

  509

  West Mercia

  377

  707

  806

  West Midlands

  675

  1,533

  2,094

  West Yorkshire

  593

  1,020

  1,071

  Wiltshire

  487

  832

  848

  Dyfed-Powys

  525

  1,054

  1,218

  Gwent

  1,104

  2,151

  2,601

  North Wales

  483

  787

  952

  South Wales

  670

  1,018

  1,129

  England and Wales

  667

  1,160

  1,341

  1 Including the City of London

  Car crime (theft of and from vehicles). Recorded offences per 100,000 population

  Police force

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  2,843

  2,559

  2,312

  Bedfordshire

  2,333

  2,309

  2,595

  Cambridgeshire

  2,182

  1,858

  1,729

  372W

  Car crime (theft of and from vehicles). Recorded offences per 100,000 population

  Police force

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Cheshire

  1,362

  1,267

  1,237

  Cleveland

  2,842

  2,573

  2,342

  Cumbria

  1,469

  1,316

  1,098

  Derbyshire

  2,015

  2,100

  1,868

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,506

  1,435

  1,375

  Dorset

  1,689

  1,789

  1,653

  Durham

  1,827

  1,653

  1,502

  Essex

  1,472

  1,463

  1,332

  Gloucestershire

  2,471

  2,002

  1,838

  Greater Manchester

  3,232

  3,390

  3,412

  Hampshire

  1,587

  1,386

  1,319

  Hertfordshire

  1,854

  1,528

  1,432

  Humberside

  2,963

  2,871

  2,478

  Kent

  1,988

  1,871

  1,427

  Lancashire

  1,906

  1,647

  1,459

  Leicestershire

  2,154

  2,211

  2,039

  Lincolnshire

  1,238

  1,121

  1,103

  Merseyside

  1,993

  2,146

  2,394

  Metropolitan Police District1

  2,125

  2,146

  2,284

  Norfolk

  1,530

  1,384

  1,320

  Northamptonshire

  2,328

  2,305

  1,990

  Northumbria

  2,265

  2,057

  1,838

  North Yorkshire

  1,595

  1,307

  1,158

  Nottinghamshire

  2,806

  2,612

  2,396

  South Yorkshire

  2,728

  2,553

  2,264

  Staffordshire

  1,951

  1,836

  1,658

  Suffolk

  1,011

  967

  969

  Surrey

  1,160

  906

  948

  Sussex

  1,777

  1,703

  1,677

  Thames Valley

  2,412

  2,351

  2,404

  Warwickshire

  2,051

  1,779

  1,701

  West Mercia

  1,693

  1,436

  1,385

  West Midlands

  2,996

  2,818

  2,931

  West Yorkshire

  2,802

  3,036

  2,759

  Wiltshire

  1,268

  1,128

  1,090

  Dyfed-Powys

  498

  519

  460

  Gwent

  1,735

  1,750

  1,634

  North Wales

  1,206

  1,106

  1,141

  South Wales

  3,234

  2,967

  2,667

  England and Wales

  2,149

  2,064

  1,991

  1 Including the City of London

  Robbery. Recorded offences per 100,000 population

  Police force

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  106

  124

  160

  Bedfordshire

  97

  96

  110

  Cambridgeshire

  50

  61

  76

  Cheshire

  33

  40

  47

  Cleveland

  91

  163

  151

  Cumbria

  21

  24

  18

  Derbyshire

  41

  52

  60

  Devon and Cornwall

  25

  30

  31

  Dorset

  30

  30

  35

  Durham

  23

  28

  39

  Essex

  29

  34

  41

  Gloucestershire

  66

  49

  52

  Greater Manchester

  244

  297

  335

  Hampshire

  32

  33

  41

  Hertfordshire

  33

  29

  48

  Humberside

  85

  95

  108

  Kent

  46

  45

  53

  Lancashire

  59

  69

  74

  Leicestershire

  95

  104

  110

  Lincolnshire

  17

  24

  29

  Merseyside

  151

  176

  189

  Metropolitan Police District1

  362

  346

  473

  Norfolk

  24

  28

  38

  Northamptonshire

  69

  73

  78

  Northumbria

  88

  94

  97

  North Yorkshire

  27

  23

  29

  373W

  Robbery. Recorded offences per 100,000 population

  Police force

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Nottinghamshire

  111

  127

  171

  South Yorkshire

  73

  75

  86

  Staffordshire

  47

  48

  66

  Suffolk

  21

  21

  33

  Surrey

  25

  22

  28

  Sussex

  46

  63

  68

  Thames Valley

  61

  64

  79

  Warwickshire

  29

  34

  44

  West Mercia

  26

  31

  32

  West Midlands

  255

  278

  384

  West Yorkshire

  128

  146

  146

  Wiltshire

  28

  33

  43

  Dyfed-Powys

  7

  9

  6

  Gwent

  28

  31

  39

  North Wales

  17

  19

  22

  South Wales

  41

  41

  42

  England and Wales

  121

  128

  161

  1 Including the City of London

  Burglary. Recorded offences per 100,000 population

  Police force

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  2,127

  1,975

  1,868

  Bedfordshire

  1,619

  1,291

  1,422

  Cambridgeshire

  1,801

  1,791

  1,720

  Cheshire

  1,362

  1,336

  1,301

  Cleveland

  2,946

  2,973

  2,808

  Cumbria

  1,400

  1,181

  1,107

  Derbyshire

  1,799

  1,732

  1,602

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,298

  1,148

  1,110

  Dorset

  1,237

  1,338

  1,225

  Durham

  2,008

  1,666

  1,494

  Essex

  1,078

  985

  976

  Gloucestershire

  2,078

  1,808

  1,670

  Greater Manchester

  2,944

  3,079

  2,924

  Hampshire

  1,166

  1,125

  1,060

  Hertfordshire

  1,082

  958

  989

  Humberside

  4,079

  3,862

  3,650

  Kent

  1,653

  1,467

  1,253

  Lancashire

  1,960

  1,700

  1,497

  Leicestershire

  2,022

  1,853

  1,683

  Lincolnshire

  1,713

  1,656

  1,720

  Merseyside

  1,849

  1,875

  1,819

  Metropolitan Police District1

  1,869

  1,633

  1,685

  Norfolk

  1,407

  1,297

  1,296

  Northamptonshire

  1,884

  1,993

  1,835

  Northumbria

  2,411

  2,211

  1,856

  North Yorkshire

  1,546

  1,523

  1,401

  Nottinghamshire

  2,903

  2,789

  2,565

  South Yorkshire

  2,870

  2,635

  2,485

  Staffordshire

  2,228

  1,923

  1,805

  Suffolk

  921

  936

  926

  Surrey

  965

  883

  844

  Sussex

  1,399

  1,407

  1,297

  Thames Valley

  1,521

  1,474

  1,486

  Warwickshire

  1,658

  1,601

  1,528

  West Mercia

  1,461

  1,299

  1,260

  West Midlands

  2,930

  2,685

  2,617

  West Yorkshire

  3,209

  3,205

  2,787

  Wiltshire

  1,072

  1,023

  944

  Dyfed-Powys

  543

  547

  432

  Gwent

  1,646

  1,511

  1,374

  North Wales

  1,152

  1,102

  1,048

  South Wales

  2,203

  1,916

  1,625

  England and Wales

  1,952

  1,826

  1,729

  1 Including the City of London

  374W

  Theft and handling stolen goods (includes theft of and from vehicles). Recorded offences per 100,000 population

  Police force

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  5,093

  4,875

  4,778

  Bedfordshire

  4,305

  4,089

  4,516

  Cambridgeshire

  4,555

  4,486

  4,456

  Cheshire

  2,839

  2,742

  2,758

  Cleveland

  5,614

  5,713

  5,442

  Cumbria

  3,304

  3,354

  2,980

  Derbyshire

  3,604

  3.806

  3,713

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,125

  3,209

  3,116

  Dorset

  3,382

  3,490

  3,423

  Durham

  3,391

  3,341

  3,264

  Essex

  3,024

  2,913

  2,950

  Gloucestershire

  4,630

  4,196

  4,242

  Greater Manchester

  5,168

  5,641

  5,668

  Hampshire

  3,519

  3,262

  3,282

  Hertfordshire

  3,035

  2,631

  2,659

  Humberside

  6,094

  6,543

  5,839

  Kent

  3,827

  3,660

  3,323

  Lancashire

  3,823

  3,504

  3,116

  Leicestershire

  4,046

  4,134

  4,011

  Lincolnshire

  3,261

  3,120

  3,138

  Merseyside

  4,120

  4,177

  4,415

  Metropolitan Police District1

  4,903

  5,090

  5,604

  Norfolk

  3,511

  3,281

  3,247

  Northamptonshire

  4,215

  4,751

  4,248

  Northumbria

  4,209

  4,357

  4,081

  North Yorkshire

  3,542

  3,472

  3,277

  Nottinghamshire

  5,398

  5,800

  5,872

  South Yorkshire

  4.606

  4,389

  4,221

  Staffordshire

  3,624

  3,576

  3,649

  Suffolk

  2,562

  2,565

  2,596

  Surrey

  2,497

  2,284

  2,401

  Sussex

  3,743

  3,873

  3,949

  Thames Valley

  4,161

  4,296

  4,580

  Warwickshire

  3,621

  3,506

  3,419

  West Mercia

  3,420

  3,234

  3,198

  West Midlands

  4,793

  4,788

  5,338

  West Yorkshire

  5,143

  5,466

  5,236

  Wiltshire

  2,834

  2,804

  2,766

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,501

  1,612

  1,538

  Gwent

  3,542

  3,722

  3,539

  North Wales

  2,644

  2,657

  2,684

  South Wales

  5,001

  4,669

  4,356

  England and Wales

  4,163

  4,197

  4,241

  1 Including the City of London

  Criminal damage. Recorded offences per 100,000 population

  Police force

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  1,390

  1,394

  1,378

  Bedfordshire

  1,462

  1,429

  1,446

  Cambridgeshire

  1,315

  1,674

  1,682

  Cheshire

  1,143

  1,181

  1283

  Cleveland

  2,022

  1,922

  1,943

  Cumbria

  1,640

  1,708

  1,814

  Derbyshire

  1,392

  1,483

  1,568

  Devon and Cornwall

  987

  1,142

  1,186

  Dorset

  1,209

  1,208

  1,216

  Durham

  1,730

  1,828

  1,753

  Essex

  1,245

  1,237

  1,420

  Gloucestershire

  1,107

  1,175

  1,434

  Greater Manchester

  2,644

  2,607

  2,918

  Hampshire

  1,508

  1,424

  1,588

  Hertfordshire

  1,139

  1,168

  1,316

  Humberside

  2,275

  2,429

  2,348

  Kent

  1,544

  1,472

  1,575

  Lancashire

  1,879

  1,499

  1,596

  Leicestershire

  1,513

  1,630

  1,819

  Lincolnshire

  1,160

  1,248

  1,347

  Merseyside

  1,667

  1,943

  2,187

  Metropolitan Police District1

  1,861

  1,800

  1,977

  Norfolk

  1,259

  1,327

  1,389

  375W

  Criminal damage. Recorded offences per 100,000 population

  Police force

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Northamptonshire

  1,919

  1,929

  1,906

  Northumbria

  2,461

  2,212

  2,135

  North Yorkshire

  1,162

  1,135

  1,161

  Nottinghamshire

  2,730

  2,321

  2,297

  South Yorkshire

  1,806

  1,855

  1,940

  Staffordshire

  1,605

  1,478

  1,738

  Suffolk

  1,184

  1,185

  1,423

  Surrey

  844

  966

  1,093

  Sussex

  1,627

  1,602

  1,759

  Thames Valley

  1,238

  1,247

  1,364

  Warwickshire

  1,271

  1,368

  1,468

  West Mercia

  1,339

  1,363

  1,532

  West Midlands

  1,859

  1,916

  2,337

  West Yorkshire

  2,202

  2,333

  2,276

  Wiltshire

  965

  1,109

  1,181

  Dyfed-Powys

  943

  941

  921

  Gwent

  1,788

  2,099

  2,199

  North Wales

  1,713

  1,471

  1,537

  South Wales

  2,380

  2,445

  2,272

  England and Wales

  1,686

  1,685

  1,804

  1 Including the City of London

  Offences per police officer, year ending 30 September 20001

  Police force area

  Offences per officer

  Avon and Somerset

  50

  Bedfordshire

  50

  Cambridgeshire

  54

  Cheshire

  32

  Cleveland

  46

  Cumbria

  32

  Derbyshire

  47

  Devon and Cornwall

  37

  Dorset

  40

  Durham

  30

  Essex2

  37

  Gloucestershire

  44

  Greater Manchester

  55

  Hampshire

  40

  Hertfordshire2

  30

  Humberside

  60

  Kent

  40

  Lancashire

  34

  Leicestershire

  46

  Lincolnshire

  40

  London, City of

  10

  Merseyside

  36

  Metropolitan Police2

  41

  Norfolk

  42

  Northamptonshire

  52

  Northumbria

  36

  North Yorkshire

  40

  Nottinghamshire

  63

  South Yorkshire

  40

  Staffordshire

  48

  Suffolk

  39

  Surrey2

  26

  Sussex

  49

  Thames Valley

  50

  Warwickshire

  40

  West Mercia

  42

  West Midlands

  51

  West Yorkshire

  54

  Wiltshire

  32

  Dyfed-Powys

  22

  Gwent

  45

  North Wales

  33

  South Wales

  39

  Total

  43

  1 Based on number of offences for year ended 30 September 2000, and numbers of police officers as at 31 March 2000.

  2 Based on estimated number of offences had pre-1 April 2000 boundaries been in effect.

  376W
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the proportion of people released from prison in England and Wales in each of the last five years who reoffended within two years; and if he will make a statement. [144644]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on reoffending rates is not available.

  However, it is estimated that 57 per cent. of people released from prison in England and Wales during the first quarter of 1997 were reconvicted for a standard list offence within two years of release.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences were committed in Avon and Somerset within the last two years by people released from prison under early release schemes; and if he will make a statement. [144643]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are two statutory early release schemes:

  Parole: prisoners serving a sentence of four years or more are entitled to be considered for discretionary conditional release on parole licence at the halfway point of their sentence. Those who are refused parole are released automatically at the two thirds point of their sentence on non-parole licence. Information about prisoners who are released on parole licence and who commit a further offence during the currency of that licence is not currently held centrally.

  Home Detention Curfew
  most prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years and more than three months are eligible to be considered for the home detention curfew scheme, which commences up to 60 days before the halfway point of the sentence. Information about prisoners who are subject to the scheme, who have been released to an address in either Avon or Somerset and who have committed an offence during the currency of the scheme is not immediately available. The Prison Service has made further inquiries of the electronic monitoring contractors for the South West of England and I will write to the right hon. Member with this information as soon as it is available. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Early release schemes are designed to ensure a better transition between custody and the community. Prisoners are only placed on the schemes after a careful risk assessment, in which the overriding concern is the safety of the public.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the correspondence sent to him concerning Damira Majic of Hope raised with him on 11 July 2000 and acknowledged by card reference number 13706/0 of 21 July 2000; and if he will make a statement. [146047]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 17 January. I am sorry that he did not receive an earlier reply.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time was from
  377W
  arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders (a) on the latest date for which figures are available and (b) in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [145704]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders is an estimated 94 days for the month of October 2000. In October 1997, the average was 130 days. The figure for the whole of 1997 was 141 days. Substantial progress has been made towards the Government's target of halving the average time, from 142 days in 1996 to 71 days.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations and individuals from whom he has received representations on the plan to charge for criminal records checks. [146051]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have received a substantial number of representations, both direct and via right hon. and hon. Members, over many months, about the fees which will be charged by the Criminal Records Bureau for criminal record checks when they become available, in most cases for the first time, to assist in recruitment decisions and protect the welfare of vulnerable people. These have come principally from voluntary organisations, larger (such as the Scout Association and the St. John Ambulance) and smaller in size, which are involved in working with those under 18 or other vulnerable people, and from individuals involved in volunteering. There have also been ad hoc meetings at both ministerial and official levels with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), with individual groups, and with groups of organisations such as national sports bodies; and the NCVO represents the voluntary sector on the board which oversees and advises Ministers on the programme to establish the Criminal Records Bureau.

  EU (National Elections)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the eligibility criteria are in each EU member state for foreign nationals to participate in that member state's national elections; [146083]

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to allow EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom to vote in British general elections. [146082]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Those entitled to vote at parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom are British citizens and those citizens of other Commonwealth countries and of the Republic of Ireland who are resident in the United Kingdom. Resident citizens of other European Union member states are not eligible to vote at parliamentary elections but may vote in local government and European parliamentary elections. I have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  It is for each member state to determine who is eligible to vote in its national parliamentary elections. We do not keep records of the arrangements in other member states.

  Firearms
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals in each of 378W
  the last three years have been (a) arrested for and (b) convicted of (i) wounding and (ii) killing with a legally held shotgun. [145950]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Arrests data held centrally and information collected on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database do not identify the type of weapon used for violent offences.

  Information, taken from the data collection "Recorded crime in which firearms were reported to have been used or misappropriated" on the number of homicides and other injuries caused by the use of shotguns in the last three years are recorded is follows:

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Homicide

  16

  11

  19

  Injuries—shotgun fired

  44

  48

  61

  Injuries—shotgun used as a blunt instrument

  11

  14

  20

  Information is not available as to whether the shotgun was legally held or not.

  Police Manpower
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in England and Wales in each of the years 1978–79 to 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [144648]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is set out in the table. The latest available figures for 2000–01 are those for 30 September 2000. They show that police numbers at the end of September 2000 were 444 higher than in the March of that year.

  With funding from the crime fighting fund— £454 million over the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03— forces will be able to recruit 9,000 police officers over and above the number they had otherwise planned to recruit in that period. This funding should enable police numbers to reach their highest ever level by 2003–04.

  Police numbers 1978–79 to 2000–01

  Year1

  Total number of police officers

  1978–79

  111,133

  1979–80

  114,543

  1980–81

  118,102

  1981–82

  119,973

  1982–83

  121,003

  1983–84

  121,053

  1984–85

  120,116

  1985–86

  120,848

  1986–87

  122,236

  1987–88

  124,080

  1988–89

  125,631

  1989–90

  126,777

  1990–91

  127,495

  1991–92

  127,627

  1992–93

  128,290

  1993–94

  127,897

  1994–95

  127,222

  1995–96

  126,901

  1996–97

  127,158

  1997–98

  126,814

  1998–99

  126,096

  1999–2000

  124,170

  20002

  124,614

  1 As at 31 March

  2 30 September

  379W
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in(a) Avon and Somerset and (b) the Yeovil constituency area for each quarter since September 1995; and if he will make a statement. [144616]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police personnel statistics are collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate only every six months—as at 30 September and 31 March each year. The figures are collected per force and not at constituency level. The figures available for the Avon and Somerset special constabulary from September 1995 to September 2000 are as follows:

  Number

  September 1995

  676

  March 1996

  688

  September 1996

  662

  March 1997

  759

  September 1997

  629

  March 1998

  621

  September 1998

  584

  March 1999

  547

  September 1999

  482

  March 2000

  459

  September 2000

  416

  I understand from the chief constable of Avon and Somerset that it is not possible to provide information about the numbers of special constables specifically for the Yeovil constituency area as such information is not collected. Year-end figures are available for the number of specials in post from April 1997 for the East Somerset police district, which incorporates the Yeovil constituency, and these are:

  Number

  April 1997

  73

  April 1998

  101

  April 1999

  86

  April 2000

  75

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in England and Wales in(a) March 1992 and (b) March 1997; and if he will make a statement. [144645]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 31 March 1992, there were 127,627 police officers in England and Wales. By 31 March 1997 this had declined by 469 to 127,158 officers.

  With funding from the crime fighting fund— £454 million over the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03— forces will be able to recruit 9,000 police officers over and above the number they had otherwise planned to recruit in that period. As a result, recruitment is up. 5,268 recruits entered the police training colleges in the first nine months of the current financial year compared to 3,030 in the same period in 1999–2000. And by 30 September 2000, police numbers stood at 124,614,444 higher than at the end of March that year.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the actual strength was of the East Somerset Division of Avon and Somerset Constabulary for each quarter since 1995; [144646]
  380W
  (2) what his estimate is of the number of police officers in (a) Avon and Somerset and (b) the Yeovil constituency area for each quarter or half year, as available, since September 1995; and if he will make a statement. [144649]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The table sets out the actual number of officers in the Avon and Somerset constabulary and the East Somerset division since September 1995. Information on police numbers is available on a half-yearly basis only (March and September).

  I understand from the chief constable that it is not possible to provide information about the number of officers in the Yeovil constituency as such information is not held. Although information has been provided from September 1995 for the East Somerset division, I understand from the chief constable that restructuring and changes to territorial divisions in 1997 prevent like-with-like comparisons being made with the number of officers in the East Somerset division for the periods before 1997.

  Avon and Somerset constabulary

  Year/month

  Total force strength1

  East Somerset division (police numbers)1

  30 September 1995

  2,986

  193

  31 March 1996

  2.981

  196

  30 September 1996

  3,004

  200

  31 March 1997

  2,989

  230.5

  30 September 1997

  2,973

  240

  31 March 1998

  2,976

  243.4

  30 September 1998

  2,966

  238

  31 March 1999

  2,999

  240.9

  30 September 1999

  2,989

  239

  31 March 2000

  2,934

  234.7

  30 September 2000

  2,941

  239

  1 Full-time equivalent numbers

  Denise Eckersley
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a decision on the West Yorkshire Coroner's request for an order to be issued to allow an inquest to be held into the death of Denise Eckersley. [146103]

  Mr. Boateng
  An order was issued on 10 January.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions (Overseas Residents)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those countries where British citizens who have retired receive frozen state pensions. [145177]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is as follows:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  American Samoa

  Andorra

  Angola

  Anguilla

  Antarctica

  Antigua and Barbuda

  381W

  Antilles (Netherlands)

  Argentina

  Armenia Republic of

  Aruba (Netherlands)

  Ascension Island

  Australia

  Azerbaijan, Republic of

  Azores (Portugal)

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Belarus, Republic of

  Belize

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  British Virgin Islands

  Brunei Darussalam

  Bulgaria

  Burkina Faso

  Burundi

  Cambodia (aka Kampuchea)

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cape Verde

  Cayman Islands

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Comoros Islands

  Congo

  Cook Islands

  Costa Rica

  Cuba

  Czech Republic

  Djibouti

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Libya Arab Jamahiriy

  Lithuania, Republic of

  Macau

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mali

  Marshall Islands

  Martinique

  Mauritania

  Mexico

  Micronesia, Fed Stat

  Moldova, Republic of

  382W

  Monaco

  Mongolia

  Monserrat

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Myanmar (formally Burma)

  Namibia

  Nauru

  Nepal

  New Caledonia

  New Zealand

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Niue

  Norfolk Island

  Northern Mariana Islands

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Palau Islands

  Panama

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Poland

  Qatar

  Reunion

  Romania

  Russian Federation

  Rwanda

  Saba

  San Marino

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Sarawak (Malaysia)

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sharjah (UAE)

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  St. Helena

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Martins

  St. Vincent and The Grenadine

  Sudan

  Suriname

  Swaziland

  Syrian Arab Rep.

  Tahiti

  Taiwan

  Tajikistan, Republic of

  383W

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Togo

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tristan Da Cunha

  Tunisia

  Turkmenistan, Republic of

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Tuvalu

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan, Republic of

  Vanuatu

  Vatican City (Holy See)

  Venezuela

  Vietnam

  Western Sahara

  Western Samoa

  Yemen, Republic of

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the method adopted to judge whether a claimant's combined savings and debts make them eligible to claim Jobseeker's Allowance. [145279]

  Angela Eagle
  Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) consists of both contribution-based and income-based elements. The personal rate of contribution-based JSA is payable for six months irrespective of the amount of savings a person and their partner has. Those who do not qualify for, or whose needs are not met by the contributory element, can claim income-based JSA. Claims to JSA are referred to an independent Decision Maker for a decision on entitlement which is based on the facts of each individual case.

  Income-based JSA is available to unemployed people whose resources are insufficient to meet their day-to-day living expenses and are below a level approved each year by Parliament. Generally, capital up to £3,000 is ignored and people can have up to £8,000 capital, including their partner's capital, and still get some income-based JSA. Debts or liabilities are not usually offset against a person's assets when assessing capital for Income Support purposes.

  Fraud
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were prosecuted for social security fraud in each year from 1989–90 to 1999–2000. [145200]
  384W
  Mr. Rooker
  The number of people sanctioned or prosecuted for committing benefit fraud increased by nearly 60 per cent. in 1999–2000 compared to the previous year.

  The number of prosecutions over five years old is not available. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Cautions and penalties as an alternative to prosecution

  Total

  1995–96

  10,677

  —

  10,677

  1996–97

  12,863

  —

  12,863

  1997–98

  12,009

  —

  12,009

  1998–99

  11,185

  2,835

  14,020

  1999–2000

  9,977

  12,332

  22,309

  Notes:

  1. The figures do not include sanctions for benefit fraud by authorities administering Housing and Council Tax Benefits.

  2. The Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 introduced penalties as an alternative to prosecution, these came into effect in December 1998.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total cost of benefit fraud in Scotland in each year since 1992 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1999–2000 prices. [145648]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of benefit fraud were discovered in each constituency in Scotland in each of the last five years. [145677]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on benefit fraud is not available by constituency.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the level of benefit fraud by(a) number of claimants and (b) value (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of total benefit payments for each benefit in (A) the UK and (B) Scotland. [145637]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on the level of fraud on different benefits is derived from national and area benefit review exercises. Reports on these are placed in the Library as they become available. The latest report, "The Results of the Area Benefit Review and the Quality Support Team from April 1999 to March 2000" (for income support and jobseeker's allowance), was published on 18 January 2001. This contains information on Great Britain as a whole as well as specific information on Scotland.

  Workless Households
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of children lived in workless households in Scotland in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [145673]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.
  385W

  Percentage of children living in workless households in Scotland

  Year

  Percentage

  1996

  19.5

  1997

  18.6

  1998

  17.9

  1999

  16.8

  2000

  16.7

  Notes:

  1. Children refers to all children aged under 16.

  2. A workless household is a household that includes at least one person of working age where no-one is in employment.

  3. The percentages given in the reply have not been adjusted for the small proportion of households where the household economic activity is not known.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, spring quarters (covering March to May). The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a quarterly sample survey of over 60,000 households in the United Kingdom.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will arrange for application forms for winter fuel payments to be available at post offices. [145620]

  Mr. Rooker
  Winter fuel payment claim forms are available either by contacting the winter fuel payment helpline or from the departmental website or the internet. The administrative arrangements for the scheme in the 2001–02 winter have not yet been established, but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the Government spent on the winter fuel allowance in each of the years(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [145611]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Expenditure on winter fuel payments

  Year

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  £191 million

  1998–99

  £194 million

  1999–2000

  £902 million

  2000–01

  £1.701 billion

  Source:

  Administrative statistics

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions his Department makes about the proportion of the winter-fuel payment that will be used by(a) low-income and (b) other households to defray the cost of their winter fuel bills. [145765]

  Mr. Rooker
  The winter fuel payment is intended to help elderly people defray their winter heating costs. This winter's £200 payment represents more than one third of the annual average fuel bill for a pensioner household.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households will receive the winter fuel allowance this financial year. [145612]

  Mr. Rooker
  Over eight million households containing at least one person aged 60 or over will have benefited from winter fuel payments in the current financial year.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retirement pensioners are receiving the minimum income guarantee in(a) Great Britain, (b) each region of Great Britain and (c) each parliamentary constituency. [145110]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the administration costs of the minimum income guarantee have been for each year for which figures are available [146089]

  Mr. Rooker
  Administration costs for the minimum income guarantee (MIG), which is paid through income support, are not collated separately from other forms of income support.

  Social Security Budget
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the social security budget was spent in Scotland, broken down by the expenditure headings of the departmental budget, in the last three years. [145675]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Scotland live in a low-income household. [145676]

  Mr. Rooker
  Definition of low income households vary. Such information as is available can be found in the Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1998–99 and the Annex to the Scottish Social Justice Annual Report 2000, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for separating work relating to pensioners in Benefits Agency offices from work relating to other clients. [145109]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Providing a service more tailored to the requirements of the different groups of customers served by the DSS is a top priority for my Department.

  I have already ensured that policy functions at the DSS are divided into three distinct divisions: children, pensioners and working age. This change has produced a greater focus in the Department's work on its three separate customer groups and their very different needs.

  As the next stage in the process I am setting up a new pensions organisation—with responsibility for everything from policy development to front-line service delivery. Today's and tomorrow's pensioners will receive a distinct and responsive service, dedicated to their needs, that uses modern technology to provide the most up-to-date delivery of benefits and advice.

  In parallel—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced—my Department is working with the Department for Education and Employment to establish a new working age agency. This will bring together the

  387W
  Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency which currently deal with people of working age. The new agency will have a clear focus on work— providing advice, support and assistance to help those who can work back into jobs.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he proposes to take to ensure that everyone has an adequate supplementary pension over and above the state pension. [145914]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are taking a number of steps to ensure as many people as possible retire with a decent second pension on top of their basic state pension.

  In April this year, we will introduce stakeholder pensions which will increase access to private pensions for people on middle incomes who do not have access to good occupational pension schemes. In addition, in 2002, we plan to introduce the state second pension, which will result in around 18 million people building up bigger second pensions than they would have got from SERPS, including certain carers and disabled people who are currently excluded from additional pension altogether.

  We have announced plans to introduce a new pension credit which will reward savings. These changes will be supported by improving pensions education, including advertising to raise awareness about pensions issues, and an improved pensions forecasting service to ensure people of working age are in a position to make informed choices about saving for their retirement.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many former Far-East prisoners of war residing in(a) Renfrewshire and (b) Scotland have made applications to the War Pensions Agency for compensation; and when they will receive the compensation. [144502]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We expect to start sending out ex-gratia payments at the beginning of February.

  Family Income (Benefits)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) of 11 January 2001,Official Report, column 607W, on family incomes, if he will revise the table to include those families dependent on (a) family income supplement, (b) family credit and (c) working families tax credit. [146012]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information on family income supplement is not available in the format requested. However, information on the number of families receiving family income supplement is in the table.

  Number of families receiving Family Income Supplement, Great Britain 1978–79 to 1987–88

  Number of families (000)

  1978–79

  78

  1979–80

  86

  1980–81

  110

  1981–82

  139

  1982–83

  182

  388W

  Number of families receiving Family Income Supplement, Great Britain 1978–79 to 1987–88

  Number of families (000)

  1983–84

  202

  1984–85

  199

  1985–86

  201

  1986–87

  218

  1987–88

  213

  Note:

  1. Family Income Supplement was replaced by Family Credit in April 1988

  2. Figures are at March of each year

  Children in families receiving Family Credit, Great Britain 1988–99

  Number of children (000)

  Proportion of children under 16 in Great Britain (%)

  1988

  388.5

  3.5

  1989

  591.6

  5.3

  1990

  629.9

  5.6

  1991

  691.2

  6.1

  1992

  772.7

  6.8

  1993

  923.4

  8.0

  1994

  1,044.2

  9.0

  1995

  1,141.5

  9.8

  1996

  1,291.8

  11.1

  1997

  1,396.4

  11.9

  1998

  1,428.3

  12.2

  1999

  1,462.1

  12.5

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are given at a point in time of May each year

  2. Children are defined as aged 0–15

  3. Number are based on a 5 per cent. sample data and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error

  4. Caseload figures for 1988 to 1990 are not completely accurate and they therefore may be a slight underestimate

  Source:

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1988-May 1999

  Children in families receiving Working Families' Tax Credit, Great Britain, 2000

  Number of children (000)

  Proportion of children under 16 in Great Britain (%)

  2000 (May)

  1,856.9

  15.9

  2000 (August)

  1,976.1

  16.9

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are given at a point in time. Two sets of information are given for 2000: May and August, which is the latest available date

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands

  3. Working Families' Tax Credit replaced Family Credit in October 1999

  4. Children are defined as aged 0–15 at the application date

  5. Numbers are based on a 1 in 20 sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error

  Duplicate Payments
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the audit investigation into the computer error in October 1999 that led to £1.32 million worth of duplicate Income Support payments; [146010]

  (2) how much of the £1.32 million of duplicated Income Support payments in October 1999 has been recovered. [146011]
  389W
  Mr. Bayley
  Our latest estimate suggests the losses were slightly more than half the initial estimate. The cause of the problem was identified and a computer fix was implemented in February 2000. Because the losses to individuals were relatively small, recovery was deemed not to be cost-effective.

  Poverty
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Government will set a timetable for the elimination of poverty in the UK. [146021]

  Mr. Bayley
  Our strategy for tackling poverty is set out in the annual publication "Opportunity for All", the second volume of which was published on 21 September and called "Opportunity for All One Year On: Making a Difference".

  Pensions (Yeovil)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Yeovil constituency have a weekly gross income of under(a) £100, (b) £150, (c) £200, (d) £500 and (e) £1,000. [144586]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Yeovil constituency receive the over-80s premium on the basic state pension; and if he will make a statement. [144588]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are 2,321,800 elderly people living either in Great Britain or overseas who have an entitlement to basic state pension and who receive the over-80s addition. Among them, 5,500 are resident in the parliamentary constituency of Yeovil.

  Notes:

  1. The case count figures quoted are in thousands and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

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

  Source:
  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2000.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the benefit claims forms that referred claimants to the Citizens Advice Bureaux Service for assistance and advice in their completion as at 31 December 2000; what percentage of documents issued referred benefits claimants to Citizens Advice Bureaux in each year from 1996 to 2000; and what discussions the Government have had with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in respect of the inclusion of such references to advice. [146091]

  Angela Eagle
  DSS claim packs and forms refer customers to Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABs) for general advice. They do not direct them to CABs for claim pack or form completion.

  These references have been discussed with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB).

  At present, 40 forms out of a total of 52 contain a reference to the CABs ie 76.92 per cent. Figures for the years 1996 to 2000 are not available.
  390W
  The claim forms that refer to CABs for advice and assistance are listed as follows:
  Attendance Allowance

  DS2

  DS2A

  DS1140

  DS263

  The Child Benefit claim pack
  Disability Living Allowance

  DLA1

  DLA1A

  DLA434

  DLA580

  DLA581

  DLA582

  and child versions of each of the DLA forms

  Guardian's Allowance

  BG1

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit

  NHB1A

  Invalid Care Allowance

  DS700

  Incapacity Benefit

  SC1

  SSP1

  Income Support

  A1

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  BI100-A

  BI100-B

  BI100-C

  BI100-E

  BI100-OA

  BI100-OD

  BI100-PN

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  JSA1

  JSA2

  JSA3

  JSA4

  JSA4A

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  SDA1

  Social Fund

  SF100

  SF300

  SF401

  SD500.

  Benefit Payments (Yeovil)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of people of working age in Yeovil constituency receive(a) Income Support and (b) disability benefits; and if he will make a statement. [144587]
  391W
  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Paddy Ashdown, dated 18 January 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what percentage of people of working age in Yeovil constituency receive (a) Income Support and (b) disability benefits; and if he will make a statement.
  The data is not available in the requested format, however, the information which is available is supplied in the table below.

  Recipients of working age on Income Support and disability benefits in Yeovil parliamentary constituency as at May 20001

  Benefit

  Total receiving benefit

  Income Support (IS)

  2,500

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  1,700

  Incapacity Benefit (IB)

  1,700

  Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

  600

  IB, SDA or DLA2

  2.800

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2 Number of people who receive one or more of these benefits.

  Source:

  Client Group Analysis of DSS ASDI 5 per cent. statistical samples relating to May 2000

  I hope this is helpful.

PRIME MINISTER

  Social Exclusion (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recommendation in the Third report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, on social exclusion in Wales, concerning the availability of disaggregated statistical information relating to Wales. [146019]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have been asked to reply.

  A great deal of statistical information is already available in geographically dis-aggregated form—and the Committee specifically paid tribute to the recent publication of the "Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation", which brings together some new small area data for Wales. The National Assembly hopes to extend the amount of information available at the local level in collaboration with the Office for National Statistics' Neighbourhood Statistics Service to be launched shortly.

  The Government are carefully considering all of the Select Committee's recommendations, including this one, and will respond fully to the report in due course.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the Government's debt recovery policies to ensure that they support the aims of its social inclusion strategy. [146014]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor is not involved in large-scale debt recovery, but is responsible for the courts and the enforcement of civil court judgments.
  392W
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is currently carrying out a review of enforcement of civil court judgments. The final report of phase 1 was published on 26 July 2000 and phase 2 is still continuing. My Department has been and will continue to involve colleagues working on social exclusion issues and debt advice agencies throughout the review process and will take account of their views.

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the costs of the recently completed research project into the Legal Services Commission's publicly-funded family mediation pilot project were; how many copies of the full research report were printed and what plans he has to publish more copies of the research; what the cost of the recently completed research project into the provision of divorce information was; when the divorce information research report will be published; and if he will make a statement. [144885]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost of the research into the pilot contacts for the provision of publicly funded family mediation commissioned by the Legal Services Commission was £785,700. The LSC printed 100 copies of the full report and 500 copies of a summary of the report's findings for distribution at the time of publication on 20 December 2000. Further copies are in the process of being printed. In addition, the fully report and summary are available on the LSC's website.

  The total cost of the information meeting pilots under Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 was £6,338,799, of which £2,183,996 related to the cost of evaluating the pilots. The final evaluation report was published on 16 January 2001, and I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) on that date, Official Report, column 219W.

  CAFCASS
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date CAFCASS will open; and when(a) a training manual and (b) introductory booklets and leaflets will be made available. [144853]

  Jane Kennedy
  CAFCASS will begin operation on 1 April 2001. The continued training and development of staff will be a priority for the new service and CAFCASS will have a training strategy. There are no plans to produce a prescriptive training manual as the service involves complex judgments which require flexible approaches in each case. Instead, there will be available a wide range of guidance from 1 April. This guidance is based on the work which has been carried out as part of the CAFCASS development programme and includes that developed jointly with key stakeholders. CAFCASS plans to publish a number of leaflets covering general introductory issues and specific subjects such as mediation and complaints procedures. There will also be leaflets aimed specifically at children. These will be available from each CAFCASS office from 1 April 2001.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he has taken to
  393W
  ensure that the funds transferred from a former client of the receivership division of the Public Trust Office to a nursing home owner under the special exercise relating to clients with less than £10,000 are subsequently applied for the benefit of the former client. [145684]

  Jane Kennedy
  Of the cases where the involvement of the Public Trust Office has ceased as a result of the review exercise, only four have had capital passed to a nursing home. The Public Trust Office ensures that strict criteria are applied before any proposals are put to the Court of Protection to transfer client's assets to a nursing home, to be applied for the client's benefit. A nursing home would be approached only in exceptional cases, where there is no one else suitable or willing to act. The circumstances of every case are considered individually. When the nursing home is approached, they are informed that the capital must be held in an account in the client's name. The home must also advise the Public Trust Office how they will monitor the account and what audit checks are in place to ensure proper use of the funds. All people of whom the Public Trust Office is aware, who have an interest in the client, as well as all relatives, are advised of the new arrangements. Each case is considered by the Court of Protection, which makes an order discharging the Public Trustee and pays the capital to the nursing home. The Court will make such an order only if it is of the opinion that the client's interests are best served by the proposed new arrangements. Of the cases where the involvement of the Public Trust Office has ceased as a result of the review exercise, only four have had capital passed to a nursing home.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many casual and agency staff are employed in the Public Trust Office in clerical and administrative grades; and how many have authority to issue cash payments from clients' funds. [145685]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Public Trust Office has 10 casual and 112 agency staff in clerical and administrative grades. Of these, three casual staff and one agency staff are on the authorised signatory list for payments from client's funds. However, two signatures are required in all cases to authorise such payments.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been paid to outside consultants working at the Public Trust Office in the last year; and how many consultants there are. [145682]

  Jane Kennedy
  The amount paid to outside consultants in the year to November 2000 was £288,000. This was for seven consultants.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in putting out to tender the last resort receivership work carried out by the receivership division of the Public Trust Office. [145678]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) on 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 272W, announcing publication of "The Way Forward and an Analysis of the Consultation". The Lord Chancellor has decided not to conduct a competitive tender for last resort work. Instead, we will put in place an approved list of receivers to whom cases can be transferred where it is in the client's best interest.
  394W
  Applications to be on this list were advertised at the beginning of January and an evaluation of the responses received will start shortly.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff formerly employed in the mental health division of the Public Trust Office have left the Agency in the six month period to 1 December 2000; and what was the equivalent figure for(a) the previous six months and (b) the same period in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1991 [145680]

  Jane Kennedy
  During the six month period to 1 December 2000, 37 staff, formerly employed in the mental health division of the Public Trust Office, left the office. The equivalent figure for the preceding six months was 33. The number of staff leaving the office in the six month period to 1 December 1998 was 28, and for the same period in 1997, 26 staff.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to bring forward legislation to transfer the role of the Public Trustee to the Official Solicitor. [145689]

  Jane Kennedy
  No legislation is required to transfer the role of the Public Trustee to the Official Solicitor.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff formerly employed in the mental health division of the Public Trust Office have been transferred to other duties connected with(a) customer services and (b) the change directorate. [145681]

  Jane Kennedy
  Responsibility for customer service was formerly spread out among many staff in the mental health division but is now the responsibility of 7.5 full-time equivalent staff in the customer service division. The change directorate no longer exists; all staff who worked in the change directorate now work in the mental health division.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the rate of remuneration paid to the highest paid consultant at the Public Trust Office is. [145683]

  Jane Kennedy
  The highest paid consultant is an investment consultant, who is paid £180 per hour. His services are used on an ad hoc basis for approximately 10 hours per month.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps have been taken to ascertain the opinions of(a) clients and (b) carers of clients of the receivership division on the proposals to tender out the last resort receivership work. [145686]

  Jane Kennedy
  Letters were sent both to clients and their carers in May 2000. These contained a summary of the proposals for the last resort receivership service and sought their views. There was very little response, but some concerns were expressed and the Government no longer propose to conduct a tender for these cases.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been paid out to clients of the Public Trust Office in compensation for errors made in the six-month period to 1 December 2000; and what was the equivalent figure for the same six-month period in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [145679]
  395W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Public Trust Office has paid out the following amounts in compensation for errors: in the six month period to 1 December 2001), £261,434, of which £223,879 was in respect of one case (concerning an error discovered in June 1998); in the six months to 1 December 1999, £46,118; in the six months to 1 December 1998, 60,192; and in the six months lo 1 December 1997, £51,521. It should be noted that the errors to which these payments relate would have occurred in earlier periods.

  Flat Fee System
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the cost to public funds of the flat fee system. [145687]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost to public funds of the flat fee system will arise through the introduction of fee remissions for those unable to pay. For 2001–02, this is estimated at a maximum of £2.4 million, reducing in future years. The actual cost will be monitored. The cost of administering the new flat fee system will be approximately £0.8 million less than the previous system.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much he plans to allocate to setting up and maintaining the new Public Guardianship Office. [145688]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department plans to allocate £20.6 million cash costs to setting up the Public Guardianship Office during financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02. The cash cost that the Lord Chancellor's Department plans to allocate to running the Public Guardianship Office in 2001–02 is currently £11.8 million.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what meetings he has had with trade union representatives on proposals to change the terms and conditions of staff at the Public Guardianship Office. [145690]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have had no meeting with the trade union representatives on this subject.

  Royal Records
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how he defines the term public interest in relation to the early release of royal records. [145755]

  Mr. Lock
  Under current access criteria, there is no public interest test. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, there will be a public interest test. That test will be the same for royal records as for any other records.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discretion the Lord Chancellor has in deciding whether to release royal records relating to King Edward VIII. [145756]

  Mr. Lock
  The criteria in relation to the release of public records are set out in Annex C to the Open Government White paper (July 1993). The guiding principle is that all records not retained in Departments should he released after 30 years unless it is possible to establish that actual damage would be caused by release and that the damage would fall within the three criteria set out in that Annex. The Lord Chancellor has discretion on the interpretation of these criteria which he exercises in the light of advice from his Advisory Council on Public Records.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria will be used to determine the release of the records relating to King Edward VIII. [145757]

  Mr. Lock
  The criteria governing closure of public records including those relating to King Edward VIII are set out in Annex C to the Open Government White Paper (July 1993).

  Guidance on the length of time that royal records remain closed to the public is under review in the light of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  Trials
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which a recent High Court trial was abandoned as a result of the liaison of a police officer with a member of the jury. [145740]

  Jane Kennedy
  The re-trial of the case in question, which commenced on 15 December 2000, was halted by His Honour Judge Crawford Lindsay QC when the court received information to the effect that a female juror was in a relationship with one of the police officers who had been assigned as her jury protection officer.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St Albans): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EU Applicant States: Bilateral Relations
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to build closer bilateral relations with the European Union applicant states in the period before they become full members.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, bilateral relations with the European Union applicant states are excellent. The Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw last October has underlined the UK's position as a champion of enlargement. Ministers from a wide range of departments have had contacts with their opposite numbers from the applicant states. This has been backed by practical assistance, including the launch of bilateral action plans with seven of the applicants so far.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that there was great disappointment in the applicant states some two or three years ago that the emphasis of the Know-How Fund was directed away from the first applicants and towards countries further down the list? Does she feel that in terms of ministerial visits—and, if one may say so, prime ministerial visits—which the first group of applicants care about greatly, the United Kingdom is a little further behind our partners? Given that within the next four or five years these states will become fellow members of the European Union, does she not feel that at a ministerial level more ought to be put into building up bilateral relationships, which will stand us in very good stead when those countries join?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that a great deal of energy is being put into making sure that those bilateral relations are in good order. I do not agree with him that we are behind in the amount of energy being put into that regard. As a result of a step change, almost double the number of ministerial contacts with applicant states have taken place, up from 33 to 64 since the second half of 1999. So real energy is being put into this. I can reassure the noble Lord that further visits are planned for 2001, at an ever increasing pace.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government's positive attitude towards the
1220
applicant states is most welcome? Can she say a little about the attitude of some of the other European Union countries towards the applicant states? There is a sense that some of the other countries are not as enthusiastic as we are.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be invidious for me to make comparisons. However, the enthusiasm felt about our efforts by the applicant states is certainly reflected in their comments. I thank the noble Lord for raising this point because it is a correct one.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, given the outstanding work of the UK representative and his team at the Nice Summit, will the Minister invite the UK representative to use our outstanding influence with the applicant countries in favour of Turkey's parliamentary representation at the upcoming Swedish Summit? Although other parliamentary committees have been invited from applicant countries, surprisingly the chairman from Turkey has not been invited, which seems a pity.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that will be given every consideration. I thank the noble Baroness for raising the point.
Lord Renton: My Lords, do the Government accept that the larger the European Union becomes, the less integrated it is likely to be; and the larger it becomes, the more likely it is to become a union of independent sovereign states?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can accept that from the noble Lord. Of course we know that the larger the Union becomes, the more important it will be to make sure that we have the mechanisms for strong and robust relationships between the different states. There is nothing to indicate that anything we are doing at the moment could possibly undermine that.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the prospect of enlargement, which is welcome, is one of the reasons why the Nice Summit was so important? Does she further agree that is why the attitude of Mr William Hague in another place was so stupid in relation to the prospect of enlargement?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly endorse what my noble friend said in relation to the Nice Summit. It was very important indeed. The states seeking accession to the EU welcomed it greatly as a very important step. They have been much encouraged by the stance that Her Majesty's Government have taken in relation to those matters.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem about enlargement now is not the interest of the applicant states that the process should be speeded up—that is not the main obstacle— but the swollen and colossal acquis

1221
communautaire with which those states are being asked to burden themselves and the archaic nature of the unreformed common agricultural policy? Quite aside from what was or was not agreed at Nice, is not that where the real energies should be concentrated? Should not the Government be doing very much more to see that the acquis communautaire is reduced rather than agreeing to the abolition of still more vetoes, with still more central powers in Brussels?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. It is extremely important that all states seeking to join the Union are treated equally, and that the acquis applies to all equally so that we do not have a two-tier situation. That feeling is strongly held by the applicant states. The acquis is important. It is a unifying criteria and should be upheld. As to the CAP, it is right to say that reform of the CAP is something to which we have all aspired for a number of years. The Government are putting a huge amount of effort and energy into delivering it.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, far from weakening European integration, enlargement will strengthen it? Nice demonstrated that the extension of qualified majority voting was necessary for enlargement—and that is deepening as well as widening.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy just to say "Yes".
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the acquis communautaire is represented by the so-called Copenhagen criteria and that these are a crucial underpinning for the extension of democracy throughout central and eastern Europe? Does she further agree that it behoves us to be strongly in favour of these criteria and to ensure that they apply to the new countries of central and eastern Europe which wish to join the Union?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness, and say further that we do not get dissent from applicant states in relation to these matters. They are an important, democratic underpinning of stability for our future. The applicant states understand their importance. That is why they wish to join us on that basis.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, although I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of enlargement, will she tell the House why, if the Government are really serious about enlargement, the applicant states were given such a small proportion of the weighted voting in the system? To take an example at random, why does a country like Romania, with a population of 20 million, have such a small proportion of the votes? The Minister referred a moment ago to equal treatment. Does she think that that was equal treatment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that there was active negotiation in
1222
relation to those matters. It was of crucial importance that a proper weighting of the votes should be undertaken, which would be accepted by all, so that enlargement would take place. Those states which wish to join an enlarged Europe were very anxious for that to happen. We do not have dissent from any of them in relation to what has taken place.

Disabled People and the Armed Forces
3.9 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to ban disabled people from serving in the Armed Forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, there is no such ban and there is no intention to introduce such a ban. However, the Armed Forces are exempt from disability legislation. Service personnel who become disabled may be retained subject to operational effectiveness, but people with a disability which might put themselves or others at risk are not recruited. The Armed Forces have a unique role and members of them must be prepared at short notice to fight and prevail in the most demanding of circumstances.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is she aware that the Government and the generals are wrong to suggest that disabled people are demanding a right to join the Armed Forces in a combatant role? It would be ludicrous to talk of having blind tank drivers and deaf radio operators. The reality is that only certain disabled people seek an opportunity to serve in the Armed Forces in a non-combatant role and in jobs they are capable of doing. Was not the old idea that all soldiers, including cooks, should be flexible enough to serve in the front line in an emergency demolished by the Army itself when it accepted women—who are not allowed to serve in combat roles in the front line—as soldiers? Noble Lords smile, but all we are asking is that disabled people receive the same kind of consideration as women soldiers.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are women in the front line on our ships in the Royal Navy and serving as fighter pilots. No serviceman or service woman can be guaranteed not to be called upon to fight. Although they may not be called upon to fight, it is a possibility. They must not only be willing to do so; they must physically be able to do so in not merely dangerous, but extraordinarily dangerous, circumstances.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as disabled people have been accepted by the Army for suitable jobs in the past, is the policy that every soldier must be transferable to a combat unit a result of overstretch? Is the Minister aware that I agree that disabled soldiers should not fight on the front line? I speak from

1223
personal experience, having been wounded and disabled while serving in a Scottish division in its last major battle of World War II.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are possibly dealing with a problem of definition. "Disability" has a legal meaning within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There are people who would be categorised as having a disability under that Act but who might be eligible for recruitment into the Armed Forces—I make the point forcefully to my noble friend Lord Ashley—if their disability did not affect their operational effectiveness. For example, people with certain kinds of facial disfigurement who are covered by the Act may have a fruitful career in the Armed Forces. The point is that the criteria must be based on a military judgment regarding the operational effectiveness of the individual concerned.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I and many others were required some years ago to complete our National Service? At that time, many people with minor disabilities were exempted. Were conscription to be reintroduced, is there a danger that under any current change disabled people might be conscripted?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any question under this Government of conscription being reintroduced.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, as the Chief of the Defence Staff has recently given unequivocal support to Her Majesty's Government on so many matters, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will totally support his views on this subject?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge, the Chief of the Defence Staff gives support when the case is well argued, well reasoned and well merited. I am happy to say, as the noble Lord notes, that that has been so on a number of occasions recently.
I read the remarks of the Chief of the Defence Staff to the RUSI conference and I found nothing exceptional in his remarks. He made an extremely sensible statement of policy. It was compassionate to those in our Armed Forces who have suffered disablement. As I said in my initial Answer, many of those people still have an operational value for the Armed Forces and so are retained. The Chief of the Defence Staff struck the proper balance. As we must never forget, the criterion is one of operational effectiveness.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, does my noble friend know how General Guthrie, for whom all of us have due respect, defines disability? Does he accept the Government's definition, in which case approaching 9 million disabled people could be excluded from serving, among them many Gulf War veterans who are in the forces now? Will my noble
1224
friend ask him to accept that those us who have battled over the years against no-go areas for disabled job applicants never argued for blind bus drivers or deaf piano tuners but simply that disabled people should have the same right as everyone else to he fairly considered for the jobs they can do?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the point about the definition that Sir Charles may or may not have been using is that the Armed Forces do not use the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act. The definition that we are dealing with here is one of the operational effectiveness of the individuals concerned. I point out to my noble friend, and to my noble friend Lord Ashley, that the MoD as a whole, under the guidance of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Permanent Secretary, has a very good record on disability: 5,900 out of 100,000 civilians employed in the MoD have disabilities, and the MoD has been commended by the Royal National Institute for the Blind on the work it has done on disability issues in the past couple of years. Sir Charles has contributed. to that. But there are different criteria in our Armed Forces.

Lower Airspace Radar Service
3.16 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS) provision in the South East of England is satisfactory.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority is that the Lower Airspace Radar Service in south-east England is satisfactory. The noble Lord, as an active and distinguished flyer himself, may be aware that the Civil Aviation Authority is currently carrying out a routine review of the LARS service provision in south-east England. If the review identifies any particular difficulties I can assure the House that these will be addressed.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer; however, I am a little bemused by it. How can there be satisfaction with the LARS service in south-east England when three of the major LARS areas are not covered; namely, Manston, Luton and Dunsfold? As a radar service to general aviation below 9,000 feet in non-controlled airspace, LARS is a very important service. it enables general aviation—police helicopters, air ambulances, pipeline inspection workers and those involved in air traffic control, as well as flying schools—to operate in an environment that can often be extremely difficult in bad weather over an area of high population density.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, many civilian pilots do not use LARS, as they prefer to fly and navigate without assistance. Radar is generally ineffective in monitoring low-flying aircraft in some

1225
areas because the terrain can obscure radar responses. The CAA and the Home Office are not aware of any LARS-related problems involving, for instance, the emergency services in south-east England. Most police helicopters fly below the level at which LARS is provided; air ambulances normally fly in the upper reaches of the LARS band where they can obtain a service from the local military air traffic control centre. I shall certainly look into any aspects of which the noble Lord wishes to inform me and see whether the CAA or the Home Office can provide him with further details.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is it not a question of who would pay for LARS in this particular area? The Minister's first Answer suggested that, if the review took account of further needs, such needs would be provided. Does that mean that new radars would be provided in the event that such provision were required?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, although LARS is available over much of the United Kingdom, it would require a great increase in resources to extend it to cover the whole of the country. At present, aerodromes are not required to provide, nor flyers required to use, LARS. It already costs in excess of —1.4 million a year. Therefore, to extend it to cover the whole of the United Kingdom would appear to be a disproportionate level of effort and investment for the benefit that would accrue. The costs fall on the commercial aviation community to the benefit of the general aviation community.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this radar service is a valuable aid to safety and that its withdrawal causes significant concerns to pilots who fly outside of controlled airspace, especially those who fly by way of instruments in certain meteorological conditions—that is, in cloud? Therefore, does the Minister accept that the withdrawal and the diminution of the service has caused very significant concerns to pilots? I should declare an interest here as a current aviator.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in relation to the question of LARS withdrawal from Luton Airport in particular, I can tell the House that that decision was made prior to that airport handing over the control of its air traffic services to NATS. That decision was based on a very substantial traffic increase at Luton Airport in recent years. However, NATS has assured the Government that the management of the controlled airspace in the area around Luton Airport is sufficient to provide protection to aircraft. Nevertheless, I accept the noble Viscount's point about the importance of LARS. I commend the very important role played by the Ministry of Defence and its air traffic providers in the kind of assistance that they give to the general aviation community.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, there is some concern about the level of commercial aviation
1226
in the controlled airspace, especially in the area of Gatwick and Heathrow where there is a tremendous number of flights moving around at a wide variety of heights. When the CAA conducts its routine review, can the Minister say whether it will consider the whole question of conflict between high level aircraft and those aircraft flying at lower levels in this very congested airspace?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, when the CAA conducts its review of LARS in the south-east of England, I am sure that it will do so in the context of the other commercial activities to which the noble Baroness referred. However, in terms of the concern about overloads that have taken place in the south-east, I can tell the noble Baroness that the number of reported cases in the year 2000 was 47, which is below that recorded for 1999, when the number stood at 57, and, indeed, below that for 1998 when the figure was 64. There was a leap in the number for the year 1998 which was due to a change in practice that encouraged the greater reporting of any overload on controllers.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, if the helicopters fly below it and the air ambulances fly above, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House who uses this airspace? Is it confined to those with private planes? If that is so, should not those who want it pay for it?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there are many other aircraft that take advantage of LARS. I should emphasis again the importance of LARS to the general aviation community. I can tell my noble friend that there are other procedures for avoiding or minimising collisions which are used by crop-spraying aircraft and by the aircraft or the helicopters that inspect pipelines, and so on. However, as far as I am aware, there seems to be an agreement inside the aviation community at present that the cost of this service can be borne by the commercial sector and that the general aviation sector should have advantage of it without any rancour.

Child Trafficking
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to implement Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in view of the involvement of Britons in child trafficking by Internet.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the rights enshrined in Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child have long been recognised in the law of England and Wales. Clearly the details of the case currently being reported in the media are of great concern to the Government and to the general public. It is deplorable to see children apparently bought and sold for adoption over

1227
the Internet. It is already an offence to buy children in the United Kingdom for adoption or to make transactions to pay for children in this country. It is also an offence to advertise children for adoption in the UK unless this is done by an approved adoption agency or by a local authority. The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 will be brought into force later this year. This will make it an offence to bring children into the UK for adoption unless the requirements to be laid down in regulations are met.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his excellent and timely reply. Is he aware that, under the name of "international adoption", child trafficking, sexual exploitation, child slavery and the sale of children for 50,000 dollars for involuntary organ donation, and such like, are on the rise and are wholly unacceptable to everyone everywhere, other than paedophiles and pornographers? Therefore, does the Minister agree that not only review of our own legislation is appropriate but also that hard, tough pressure should be placed on other nations, such as the USA, and on the organised crime rings coming out of eastern and central Europe—Russia and the Gulf? In other words, should not the countries that are the buyers and the sellers also benefit from our wisdom, our advice and our very strong and powerful statements globally?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness that the practices to which she referred are absolutely abhorrent. Indeed, it is essential that we should do everything that we can to ensure that they do not happen. I believe that the Hague convention on the protection of children and co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption will enable, internationally, many of these practices to be put aside and stopped.
As a result of the convention, home countries must ensure that a child has been freely given up for adoption and that this has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind. I should add that an adoption can take place only if the adopters have been approved as suitable to become adopters in the receiving state. This country will ratify the convention on 1st January 2002. Other countries are ratifying the convention. I am sure that that is the best way forward.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we have been pressing for an adoption law in this country for many years but the Government have constantly prevaricated. The Minister said that the adoption Act 1999 will be brought into force "later this year". However, in the other place yesterday the Prime Minister said:
"We are committed to making adoption easier … We shall press ahead, and intend to introduce legislation on it in this Session".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1101; col. 336.]
Therefore, as it is to be introduced this Session, can we see the programme? Further, can the Minister tell us when it will be coming to this House?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that we shall introduce the adoption
1228
legislation as soon as possible. I must point out to the noble Baroness that this Government have shown enormous commitment in looking at how we can improve current adoption procedures. The intention is to align the adoption Act with the Children Act: it is to make the needs of children paramount when making decisions about their future; and it is to provide adopted people with much more consistent access to information and services. We are very committed to bringing it to this House.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the Minister and my noble friend Lady Nicholson in deploring these practices. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act was a Private Member's Bill sponsored by my honourable friend Mr Oaten in the other place. Clearly we have a great interest in seeing such regulations brought forward at a very early stage. In the light of tills recent case, can the Minister say whether he has considered bringing forward those regulations at the earliest possible date?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord that we are reviewing the timetable for the regulations in the light of the disturbing case that has recently arisen. I cannot give him a definite date in that respect, but we are clearly committed to ensuring that the regulations are available as soon as possible.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, am I not right that under Article 1 of the convention the child is defined as a human being under the age of 18? As a result of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act of last year, have not men of mature years, other than men in positions of authority, been given the legal right to commit buggery on children? Is that not a truly extraordinary state of affairs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have Article 1 before me. However, that question is certainly wide of the original Question. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, the Government consider that Article 7 is the relevant article. It is concerned with the registration of a child immediately after birth; the right for him or her to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. I reject completely the issue raised by the noble Lord.

Kent County Council Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 15th January be now considered; and that, notwithstanding anything in the Private Business Standing Orders or practice of the House, the promoters of the Bill, which originated

1229
in this House in Session 1998–99 and which has passed all its stages in this House but not in the Commons, may proceed with the Bill in the present Session;
That the Petition for the Bill be deemed to have been deposited;
That all Standing Orders applicable be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 pm on Monday 22nd January with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill passed by this House;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the present Session be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill had passed in the last Session and that no new fees be charged.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medway Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 15th January be now considered; and that, notwithstanding anything in the Private Business Standing Orders or practice of the House, the promoters of the Bill, which originated in this House in Session 1998–99 and which has passed all its stages in this House but not in the Commons, may proceed with the Bill in the present Session;
That the Petition for the Bill be deemed to have been deposited;
That all Standing Orders applicable be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 pm on Monday 22nd January with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill passed by this House;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the present Session be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill had passed in the last Session and that no new fees be charged.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Culture and Recreation Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Culture and Recreation Bill, has consented to place
1230
her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I cannot claim that the Bill has a single consistent theme. It is fair to say that it is what is politely called a portfolio Bill; in other words, it is a Bill which seeks to enact all of the matters requiring primary legislation which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport considers have arisen over a number of years. To that extent it is none the worse for that. I hope, however, that it will not be treated by noble Lords or by Parliament as, to use another hallowed phrase, "a Christmas tree Bill"; in other words, that no one will seek to add to it other matters which are not covered in its admittedly rather extensive Long Title.
However, there is one theme in the Bill which I hope will be welcome in this House; namely, that it implements a proposal which arose from the Government's first comprehensive spending review of 1998. The Bill is concerned with the reform and refinancing of considerable sections of our cultural and recreational life. These matters have been debated in public for a considerable period of time. Therefore Parliament addresses the primary legislation with the advantage of substantial public debate.
The Bill simplifies and clarifies the way in which cultural and sporting quangos operate and reduces their number. It will enable us to set up a major new presence on the Internet, culture online, presenting and promoting the very best of our culture, heritage and science to the whole world.
I shall deal with the parts of the Bill not necessarily in order of importance but in the order in which they are presented. Part I concerns safety at sports grounds. It implements the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review in relation to sports ground safety. During the spending review the Government examined the current sports ground safety regime and the work of the Football Licensing Authority in particular. The Government explored all options and undertook a public consultation exercise, including sports governing bodies and all safety authorities in England and Wales.
We concluded that the Football Licensing Authority has gathered a lot of experience and expertise in sports stadium safety issues while performing its role in ensuring the implementation of the Government's all seater and safe terracing requirements on football stadia. We want that expertise to be available to other sports should they want it, but the FLA is currently prohibited from giving such advice. The Bill will correct that by reconstituting the FLA as the sports ground safety authority. These proposals have been welcomed by local authorities. At this point I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Clive Sherling and the board and staff of the Football Licensing Authority. They have played a significant

1231
role in improving spectator safety and comfort at our football grounds which has contributed to the increased attendances at, and popularity of, football.
Implementation of the programme of major structural improvements flowing from Lord Justice Taylor's report into the Hillsborough disaster and the Government's all seater and safe terracing requirements is now almost complete—I say "the Government" because I think that it is obvious to all of us that we are talking about both this Government and the previous administration. There is nothing between us on these matters—though many clubs are undertaking or planning further developments on their own initiative. Football grounds are now significantly safer than in the past. Since 1989 there has been only one fatal incident inside a ground. Structural changes have been accompanied by safety management improvements.
We believe that the additional licensing regime the FLA currently operates is no longer needed. Instead, local authority safety certificates will take account of such requirements and we shall retain the FLA's important statutory duty to keep under review the discharge by local authorities of their safety certification duties in relation to Premier and Football League grounds.
I turn to parks regulations. Despite the best efforts of the Royal Parks Police, some of the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 are widely flouted, for example, cycling in areas where it is not allowed, dog fouling and dropping litter. This causes concern and annoyance to those who use the Royal Parks.
At present the courts may impose a fine of up to £200 after conviction for such an offence but, although many warnings are issued, pressure on the court services means that few cases reported for prosecution result in the offender being summonsed. Those that do frequently attract only a small fine. The current system does not deter nuisance offenders.
The Secretary of State currently intends to designate the following as fixed penalty regulations: dropping litter; cycling other than in designated areas; control of animals; animal fouling; using vehicles or cycles without appropriate lighting; and driving vehicles off park roads. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to specify by order the level of the fixed penalty, which may be different for different offences up to half the maximum fine; that is, £100. It also provides for payment of a fixed penalty by post. These provisions are comparable to those which local authorities have in their own parks. It seems evident that a rationalisation of the regime is valuable. The provisions may be applied to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, which the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food manages.
In addition, the Bill provides a change to the laying time for regulations made under the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926. At present they must be laid in draft for 40 sitting days before they can be made. The Bill brings the procedure into line with other statutory instruments which are first made and then laid for 40 days subject to a resolution to annul them.
1232
Part III of the Bill gives English Heritage the power to act or incur expenditure below the mean low water mark in waters adjacent to England up to the 12 mile limit of UK territorial waters, which brings England into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. It also allows for archaeological investigation, preservation and maintenance of marine heritage sites and puts underwater archaeology on the same footing as land archaeology.
It enables English Heritage to take over from the DCMS the running of the secretariat for the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, the management of the contract on the provision of archaeological diving services and technical advice on designated wreck sites throughout the UK. The devolved administrations agree with us that these functions would be best carried out on a United Kingdom-wide basis in consultation with the heritage bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Along with pension provisions featuring later in the Bill, this will complete the process of merging English Heritage and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.
In addition, the functions of English Heritage will be expanded by giving it the power to sell goods and services outside the United Kingdom for the first time. It will also be given the power to produce souvenirs and exploit its intellectual property.
Part IV establishes a new public body, culture online, to use digital media to allow an ever-widening audience to engage in arts and culture in all its forms. Digital technology, used imaginatively, can overcome traditional barriers to involvement in arts and culture caused by geography and cost. It can also attract new audiences to arts and culture as it enables people to take a first step in their own way and at their own pace in a familiar environment, with no commitment required and with materials especially tailored to their own interests. Moreover, digital technologies can give access to a much richer stock of resources to which the public rarely has access, such as the expertise of curators, theatre directors or leading musicians.
Our new non-departmental public body, culture online, will make a step change in access to arts and culture by bridging the digital and culture divides. It will not simply be a new website. It will fund culture as an activity rather than as a set of artefacts. Its main aims will be to get people online to access, use, experience, learn from, shape and contribute to and participate in culture broadly defined. Culture online's initial focus will be on education, particularly on enriching the school curriculum, but also on the needs of lifelong learners, both individuals and communities. At its heart will be highly interactive, participative materials. A measure of its success will be its ability to draw in individuals and communities to use these technologies to pursue their own interests, as the Open University has done, for higher education.
It will also aim to provide a showcase for the best of art and culture, particularly at the cutting edge. In order to meet these objectives, culture online will have the following key characteristics. It will take a strategic

1233
approach. Its contents should match the resources of the arts and cultural sector to identify and prioritise audience needs. It will integrate material from different sectors, including museums, galleries, libraries, heritage sites, archives of written, broadcast and film materials, the performing arts and the new digital arts. It will provide free access for users. It will use the latest technology. Initially, culture online will be producing material for use on the Internet. In time, however, culture online may wish to use other media to meet its objectives.
It will provide quality assurance for users about other related materials on the Net. It will be comprehensive, based on detailed analysis of audience need. Culture online will aim to bring both breadth and depth of coverage over time to engage all interests, including minority groups.
Finally, it will make full use of the unique selling propositions of digital technology—for example, interactive presentations building on games technology—to draw in new audiences, to produce tool kits for communities to create their own materials such as virtual exhibitions and to provide facilities for online purchasing, including tickets to real performances and exhibitions.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has secured £5 million start-up funding to research and develop materials. Culture online will be driven by the public policy goals I have outlined. The department has commissioned a full economic options appraisal to assess the most appropriate business model for culture online to deliver these materials and services. This report will be completed by the summer.
The provisions in the Bill will enable culture online to enter into agreements with third parties through contract, grants, loans and guarantees or through joint ventures. So culture online will be ready to realise the business strategy contained in the report.
Following discussions with colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we have agreed that culture online will produce materials and services representing arts and culture from across the world that are of interest to English users. As culture is a devolved policy matter, culture online will not produce material where the primary interest is for people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
I turn now to the other provisions of the Bill. Part V features a range of measures, most of which are designed to remove anomalies which hamper the efficient and effective delivery of public services. The Comprehensive Spending Review established three new bodies—the Film Council, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and Resource, and the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries—as strong new national bodies in their respective sectors. They were each established as companies in 1999 and are already doing excellent work. The Bill fulfils commitments we made in the spending review to reconstitute these three companies as statutory bodies and provide the Secretary of State with a statutory basis for making grants to them.
1234
The Bill also effects other small changes in relation to film and libraries. It allows the Secretary of State to delegate the task of certifying a film as a British film for purposes relating to taxation. It removes the now redundant requirement to keep a register of British and other films. It abolishes the Library Advisory Council for England, because in future Resource will be responsible for providing advice on public library matters.
I turn now to appointments to national museums and galleries. The Bill is intended to improve the process of public appointments to national museums and galleries in England beyond what could be achieved by administrative means alone. The proposals offer greater flexibility to national museums and galleries to enable them to vary the size of their boards and to make at least a quarter of their trustee appointments themselves. In addition, they enable the Secretary of State to make appointments in place of the Prime Minister and help to speed up the appointments process generally. However, the chairmen of the museums and galleries have expressed concern that the proposals as drafted could be used to threaten their independence. I can reassure the House that it has never been the Government's intention to undermine the independence of our national museums and galleries. The Government have agreed with the chairmen that the measures proposed will be subject to agreement with, rather than consultation with, the boards of trustees, as is provided for in the Bill.
The Government and the chairmen have also agreed that consultation before chairmen are elected by the boards will not be a legal requirement, although it will be normal practice—and, I hope it will be generally agreed, a desirable practice. The Government and the chairmen have agreed that there should also be a provision to make or vary any provision in relation to the appointment of chairmen as well as trustees. This would also be subject to agreement with the boards of trustees and could be used, for instance, to enable those boards whose chairman is appointed by the Secretary of State or Prime Minister to appoint the chairman themselves. We shall introduce government amendments, in good time in advance of Committee stage, to make the wording absolutely clear.
The Bill gives the British Library powers to establish trading companies. The Library's current inability to form such companies severely restricts its ability commercially to exploit its collections. The Bill will give the Library powers similar to those enjoyed by many national museums and galleries. It will enable it to make more efficient use of its collections and generate additional income.
Part V also removes other historic anomalies. It provides the Secretary of State with a statutory basis for making grants to the Arts Council of England (which has been funded until now under the annual Appropriation Acts). It ends the Secretary of State's obligation to use parts of Osborne House and grounds for the benefit of members of the Armed Forces and the Civil Service; and it removes the added burden on the promoters of new statues in Greater London, who must obtain the specific written consent of the

1235
Secretary of State under an Act of 1854 to erect a public statue in a public place. At present, such consent is needed in addition to all the usual consents required under planning legislation.
Part V also changes the name of the English Tourist Board to the English Tourism Council and varies, or gives power to vary, the membership of the English Tourism Council, the Wales Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. Finally, it enables the staff and former staff of various non-departmental public bodies to be transferred to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.
Without claiming any internal coherence for the different aspects of the Bill, I can claim that it simplifies and clarifies the delivery of cultural and recreational services to the public. It paves the way for an exciting new initiative to allow an ever-widening audience to engage in arts and culture. It has been subject to widespread consultation and I am sure that it will attract broad support. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the Bill is like a Pandora's box. It seems inoffensive enough, but take a look inside and all manner of worrying issues emerge. It provides evidence of the Government's increasingly interventionist approach to the arts. Nowhere is the dead hand of the state more chilling than when it takes a grip on cultural life. That is what the Government are attempting in some of the provisions of the Bill.
The prime example was mentioned by the Minister towards the end of his speech: the Government's desire to extend the size and power of the state as regards appointments to museums and galleries. It is ironic that at the same time as the Conservative Party is exploring ways of giving greater freedom to museums and galleries, the Government have been busy designing more shackles. The Bill as it is before us today would allow fundamental changes in the relationship between the Government and museums, enabling the politicisation of boards of trustees to a hitherto unprecedented extent.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has tried to argue over the past few weeks that the Bill is merely a tidying-up exercise, creating a single model on which museum boards throughout the country will be based. The Government say that the Secretary of State's intentions have been misunderstood. I have heard stories from behind the scenes that the blame has been placed on drafters and civil servants, who did not make the impact of the provisions clear enough to the Secretary of State. Nobody has been taken in by that argument, so the Secretary of State has had to do an about turn before the Bill has even had its Second Reading. Today, the Minister has told the House that the Government will amend Schedule 5 significantly in Committee. I am grateful for his commitment that the amendments will be tabled at a conveniently early stage for our perusal before Committee day.
1236
Will the amendments give the V&A Museum and the Science Museum the same conditions as the other bodies listed in the Bill? They are currently subject to more stringent appointment requirements than other bodies listed.
The Minister is highly respected in the House, but none the more so after his presentation of the Government's case on the Bill. He is a safe pair of hands, but it is unfortunate that, as a simple consequence of the Bill starting its life in this House, he has the job of clearing up the mess made by his Secretary of State.
I have listened carefully to the Minister and I had a chance to read the delegated powers scrutiny committee report. I am grateful to the Committee for its rapid work. My initial response is to welcome the Government's retreat from their extreme position on Schedule 5, but I shall want to scrutinise their amendments carefully in Committee. I shall particularly want to listen to all the museums and galleries affected. I shall want to be reassured that the Government mean what they say today, although I accept that the Minister believes what he says. In December, the Government were reported in the press as saying that they had dropped plans to influence appointments and the election of chairmen. However, they have promptly reneged on that by putting similar proposals in the Bill.
In the meantime, we have the Bill in its original slate. It reveals that the Secretary of State wanted to take powers to have significant control, by order, over the number and character of trustees and their powers to elect their own chairmen. It would have forced boards of trustees to consult Whitehall before electing a chairman. My concern is always that one person's consultation can be another person's coercion. The institutions concerned were constituted by Parliament as independent statutory bodies to operate at arm's length from the Government. It is vital to preserve that principle.
Other provisions in the Bill also give cause for concern. One relates to the drafting of the clause that gives life to culture online—if virtual reality can ever have life. My concerns are based on issues of principle and practice. As a matter of principle, the Bill should not give the Government the opportunity to direct what information people can— or should—gain access to. It should not create a system whereby interactive discussion groups can be monitored and directed by an organisation appointed by the state. I am worried that culture online could do that if Part IV is not amended.
The Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to create a monolith of his choosing—he appoints the members and chairman. Culture online is then given powers to do anything in pursuit of its work, set out in Clause 25. After a list of a host of powers, it is then given the power to,
"do such other things as it thinks necessary or expedient:".
In other words, it can do anything.

1237
Parliament has a right to expect that the Government will not seek approval for those proposals on culture online unless they already have details on how it will work and what it will cost. We shall need to examine those issues in Committee.
We shall also need to ensure that the Government's plans for the financing of culture online do not damage the chances of individual cultural bodies securing sponsorship for their own websites, many of which are well advanced and developed, but others of which are still at the embryonic stage. I was reminded of that last weekend, when I was lucky enough to visit the Verdi centenary exhibition in Milan. I saw how productive co-operation between cultural institutions and private company sponsorship can be—in this case, between La Scala theatre and a private accountancy firm of international stature, which I shall not give any more publicity than it has already gained by changing its name. There were two consoles for visitors to explore the La Scala website. Of course, it worked a zillion times faster than it has ever worked when I have tried to use it on my home personal computer. The Minister talked about free access, but if he looks at his telephone bill he will see the cost of using any cultural website, in addition to the fact that they tend to crash because of the number of images that need to be downloaded.
Many issues need to be examined to ensure that individual cultural websites do not suffer as a result of the Government's activity. We shall need to examine whether a state subsidised body should provide services in direct competition with existing commercial and voluntary sites. I was astonished to see in the Explanatory Notes that culture online is expected to go into the production of games. Will there be a new Tomb Raider storyline in which Lara Croft kills off the culture vultures? We shall wait and see.
Charles Saumarez Smith got it right in his lecture to the University of East Anglia last month. He said that much of current government thinking promotes the view that,
"there is no point in looking at a pile of old bones if you can study them just as well, if not better, on the world wide web".
The use of digital technology is a valuable resource, but nothing beats real contact with real cultural events and objects. We shall need to examine the provisions closely. As drafted, they are not acceptable.
Other parts of the Bill may not prove so troublesome, but we shall still need to examine the provisions closely, bearing in mind the old adage that the more that the Opposition and the Government agree on provisions, the more wary everybody should be and the more closely they should be examined to ensure that the policy intention is achieved and not lost on the way.
In Part I we see that the Football Licensing Authority is converted into the sports ground safety authority. I join the tribute made by the Minister to the work of the Football Licensing Authority; it has, indeed, been excellent. However, we shall need to examine the validity of the reasons which the
1238
Government give for changing the role and remit of the FLA and the drafting of the Bill in delivering that policy. Much of Part I is quite difficult to follow, but I appreciate that that is simply because of the need to draft in all the amendments to other statutes. We shall need to look carefully at some of the explanations in relation to that.
We shall also need to examine the reasons why the Secretary of State seeks the order-making power in Clause 7(2). The Government refer to it as a "reserve" power but the Bill gives it as an open-ended one. It means that the Secretary of State can give the new authority powers over every single sports ground in England and Wales. The Explanatory Notes mention cricket and rugby. However, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether athletics, race courses and major golf competitions would also be covered. Perhaps the Ryder Cup would also be included if there were a major problem at that event with regard to safety.
I am sure that all parts of the House agree that safety at sports venues is always absolutely vital. We shall need to examine whether the Bill retains the higher level of safety at football grounds which followed the publication of the Taylor report. Recently, there has been much publicity about the remarks made by the Minister for Sport on the television programme "Watchdog". She said that she was willing to consider allowing a return to "safely designed standing areas" at premiership grounds. Will the Minister clarify what current government policy is on that issue?
Part II introduces powers for fixed penalty notices to be handed out by the Royal Parks Police. Of course, we thoroughly support the work carried out by the Royal Parks Police. Like the Minister, we recognise that they face considerable difficulties in enforcing some of the regulations in the parks. I believe that one of the main issues that we shall need to examine is how fixed penalty notices will work and whether they will make it more difficult for the police to carry out their functions under the present staffing level.
On the face of it, fixed penalty notices certainly seem to be a very good idea. However, we need to examine the issues of whether they are fair and how effectively they are administered. In Committee we shall ask the Minister to undertake that the Royal Parks Police will have the right to retain all the money which they collect by way of fixed penalty notices for the better management and care of the parks.
I turn to Part III. I welcome the fact that the Government are at least implementing some of the proposals that we made in our Green Paper in 1996. However, I am disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to take forward further reforms which were recommended in that Green Paper, specifically with regard to the introduction of a statutory duty for local authorities to maintain sites and monuments records. I am delighted that in Committee my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn will table amendments on this and other matters—matters which he raised during the heritage debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Montagu in the week before

1239
Christmas. I shall leave my noble friend to go into detail on those matters. After all, he is certainly the expert; not me.
Finally, we come to Part V—the miscellany which,indeed, contains some of the jewels in the crown of culture. I have already referred to the proposals to take more control over appointments to our national museums and galleries. Therefore, I shall be brief in referring to the remaining proposals in Part V, not because I consider them to be unimportant—in fact, just the reverse—but because I know that my noble friend Lord Luke will cover those issues more fully at the end of our debate today.
Part V contains many more examples of the Secretary of State seeking wide-ranging powers. Under Clause 29 he can give a grant to any person for any reason, provided that he—only he, the Secretaryof State—believes that that person will use it for a purpose connected to the arts. There is no mention of conditions, guidelines or regulations—nothing. I am afraid that, repeat offender that he is, the Secretary of State takes the same unfettered powers for himself in Clauses 30 for films, 31 for architecture and 32 for museums.
In Clause 33 the Secretary of State gives himself the power to convert the film council, CABE and Resource into statutory corporations. I have no basic complaint about that, but I am a little puzzled. Why have the Government decided to avoid putting those details on to the face of the Bill? The provisions regarding culture online, defective though they are, are on the face of the Bill, but as yet we do not even know what that organisation will be. The other three bodies have already been operating. We know how they work and we know something about them. Yet, their own corporation is not on the face of the Bill. I find that puzzling.
In Clause 41 the Government intend to change the use of Osborne House. The questions which arise are: what will they do with it, will it be appropriate and what consultation have they carried out with the people of the Isle of Wight about the matter'? For good measure, in Clause 42 the Government are giving up the powers of the Secretary of State to veto or advise on the erection of new statues in London. I believe that my noble friend Lady Trumpington will have something to say about that.
I am almost at the end. Clauses 43 to 45 cover provisions relating to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. These are technical amendments, given the changes that are taking place in those organisations. However, I look forward to tabling my own amendments which will restore to the English Tourism Council the marketing functions which it carried out so effectively until this Government took them away from it.
This House always takes very seriously its duty to scrutinise legislation. When the proposals have a measure of bipartisan support, which, as I mentioned, some will today, paradoxically sometimes we need to challenge them even more carefully. I look forward to working with all noble Lords to make that scrutiny
1240
both fair and effective. The noble Lord mentioned Christmas trees. Some people take Christmas trees seriously; I take amendments seriously if they are to deliver a better Bill to the public. I give my word that I shall approach all my amendments in that spirit of public duty.
In the meantime, I look forward to hearing the views of all noble Lords today, but in particular those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, in his maiden speech.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, this is one of the first Bills put forward by the Government to include heritage—that is, the first in three-and-a-half years. It seems that we have to wait a great deal of time between heritage and culture Bills. Therefore, I find it slightly disappointing that, as the Minister said, this is a wide-ranging Bill. It seems to be a shell of a Bill with not a great deal in it. The Minister looks dubious at that remark. However, considering how long we have to wait for heritage Bills, we would have hoped for more substance in this one. Perhaps we shall consider that at a later stage. The Minister mentioned Christmas trees. At a later stage, by way of amendments, I hope quite happily to lay the fairy lights and even the star on the top of the tree of this Bill!
Although, to begin with, the Bill was seen as being slightly uncontroversial, Clause 38 (in Part V) seems to have riled many noble Lords. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and my noble friend Lord Russell will be dealing with that issue later, I am happy to leave it to them.
I want to focus on the area of archaeology, in which I must declare an interest. This debate almost appears to be taking a second bite at the subject of the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, just before Christmas. That debate concentrated on the report, Power of Place—The future of the historic environment. One reason why I shall give careful consideration to amendments is the rather depressing comment made by the Minister in winding up that debate. He said:
"I should not want to raise hopes that the Culture and Recreation Bill will be changed as it appears before the House in order to respond to the recommendations of this report".— [Official Report, 20/12/00; col. 774.]
I found that rather upsetting when one considers that many of the recommendations in that and in a number of other reports could have been added to this Bill. They would have gone some way to meeting the needs of the heritage sector.
I welcome several of the Bill's provisions, including those relating to maritime archaeology. The document Power of Place recommended that they appear in the Bill, which was published a few days later. English Heritage may have learnt a great deal from the slightly controversial manner in which it dealt with the monument known as Seahenge. I hope that it has learnt significantly from those mistakes, and especially about involving the local community. However, I know that my noble friend Lord Roper will raise that matter, so I shall move on.

1241
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a report in December 2000 entitled Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade. I was slightly upset to see that its recommendations had not made it into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will forgive me when I table amendments that will probe whether some of that report's recommendations can be included in the Bill.
We on these Benches are most concerned about the issues that were not included in the Bill, such as the sites and monuments records (SMRs). That would have been a valuable entry. When I first examined the provisions relating to culture online, I thought that they might be a vehicle by which SMRs could be included in the Bill. However, the Minister's description of the aims and objectives of culture online seems to rule out that possibility. We shall therefore probably table an amendment to add the word "archaeology" to its objectives.
The Minister gave the impression that provisions relating to games will be added to culture online, which will be a very wide-ranging body. Having been involved with some Internet operations, I was interested in the fact that a start-up cost of £5 million will be provided for what appears to be a fairly monolithic organisation. That is realistic. I welcome culture online's laudable aims. Clause 25(2)(a) states that its objectives involve "culture, history and science". I hope that arts, games and ticket sales will not overshadow those objectives.
To return to SMRs, we want to establish whether maintaining such records can be made into a statutory obligation for local authorities. I believe that it is recognised in DCMS that that should happen. The history of SMRs is piecemeal. They were put together as a planning tool, and now fulfil a function far wider than that which was originally set out. However, their non-statutory status is a problem because they are under threat through under-funding. Within government, it has been noted that statutory status would be beneficial. The 1996 Green Paper, Protecting our Heritage, states:
"At present there is no statutory basis for these SMRs and no duty to maintain them. The re-organisation of local government, and the demise of some county councils, could pose a threat to the continued maintenance of the SMR. The RCHM E"—
that is, the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments in England—
"which co-ordinates the work of local SMRs, has represented strongly that authorities should be placed under a duty to maintain them. The Government agrees with this view and proposes to introduce such a duty".
The paper went on to state that the Government consider the cost of such a proposal to be de minimis. The responses to the consultation were uniformly in favour of the proposal, although some respondents said that local authorities would need additional resources.
Since that Green Paper was published in 1996, a guidance note was sent to local authorities by the forerunner to the DCMS; that is, the Department of National Heritage. That note set out ways in which
1242
SMRs should be run. It is a good document, but the failure of organisations without statutory protection, and, therefore, proper resourcing, is shown by the fact that many SMRs are suffering cutbacks that are hampering their functions. For example, recent research found that SMRs were performing on average at 50 per cent below acceptable standards. Less than two-thirds of SMRs have a dedicated SMR officer. The quality of data is very variable, and nearly half have problems with bespoke searches. Many also have long backlogs of new data awaiting entry on to databases. Some of the information that may be on those databases is plainly wrong, as I have found from my own researches.
I shall give some examples to show that the situation is due to lack of funding. They were published in British Archaeology, which is a magazine of the Council for British Archaeology. In March 1998, there was a crisis in the SMR of Buckinghamshire. The county museum's budget was cut by £250,000 a year, with the proposed disbandment of the SMR. In May 1998, there were threats to the Leicestershire SMR, which were caused by the creation of a unitary authority in Leicester. In May 1998, English Heritage, the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments in England and the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers announced that only statutory status will save many SMRs. In March 1999, the archaeological service in Worcestershire gained a last-minute reprieve after being proposed for closure. There have been cuts in Northamptonshire, Pembrokeshire, Staffordshire and Hampshire. The list goes on.
We are talking about one of the main planks of the planning process that is associated with historic monuments. To convey the scale of the problem, we have lost one historic monument a day since the last war.
I realise that many parts of the Bill will be examined in much greater detail and that amendments will be tabled. With so many noble Lords waiting to speak, it would be unwise to go into those matters on this occasion. However, I want to raise one further issue, which should, perhaps, have been included in the Bill. I refer to the fact that many local regional museums are currently facing crisis point. Although I realise that the Government will not look on this with any great favour, purely because of its financial implications, there is an argument that those museums, too, should be given statutory status. The provision might state that they should be adequately funded by local authorities or by central Government. When I talked about that with my noble friend Lord Avebury, we discussed the fact that not funding local museums might be criticised when the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is next debated. The Government could therefore be criticised for under-funding local authorities and it might be argued that denying people access to local museums involves denying them their human rights. That, obviously, may be well outside the scope of the Bill. However, I look forward to our later debates on amendments to the Bill.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the Bill. Perhaps my choosing the Bill as the subject of my maiden speech needs a little explanation. I spend quite a lot of my time on recreation and not very much on culture, but that gives me at least half a qualification to speak.
The substantive parts of the Bill are five in number, as has already been pointed out, and I want to discuss two of them. Part I of the Bill deals with safety at sports grounds. It builds on the report and legislation that followed the Hillsborough disaster. Clause 5 provides a power to the Secretary of State involving accommodation for standing spectators. The power would enable the Secretary of State either to encourage or discourage the provision of standing accommodation. My understanding is that, since the Football Spectators Act 1989, which followed the report, the amount of standing accommodation for spectators in some of the major football grounds in the country has greatly diminished. In some there is no standing accommodation at all.
That reduction came about in the interests of safety, and of course safety must be the overriding factor. But there is a loss. Standing accommodation allows tickets to be sold at a lower cost than would have to be paid for seats. I am sure that a number of your Lordships fall into the category of those who have attended at football grounds and know the almost cultural effect that standing spectators provide to the enhancement of the enjoyment of everybody on those occasions.
As I said, safety must be paramount. But provided it can be done consistently with safety, it is important to ensure that provision is made for standing spectators at sports grounds and football grounds. It would be a loss if that were no longer part of the facilities in the major grounds in this country.
The second area of the Bill on which I want to comment is Part III, which deals with monuments and historic buildings. Among other things it provides for English Heritage—brought into being in the 1983 Act and charged with trying to ensure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings and promoting the enjoyment of the public—to engage in a degree of trade. That comes under Clause 22 of the Bill by amendments proposed to the 1983 Act. New Sections 33A and 33B are to be introduced.
New Section 33A says that English Heritage may publish books, films, informative material and so forth. That is in the nature of a trading operation and seems eminently sensible. But new Section 33B, which no doubt is intended to be complementary to that trading function, provides in effect for English Heritage to,
"exploit any intellectual property, or any other intangible asset, relating to ancient monuments or historic buildings.
It is the implications of that measure and the intentions behind it that I want to consider.
It seems to me that that drafting goes wider than any reasonable intention could possibly require. Ancient monuments and historic buildings are themselves the subject of wide definitions. They are not necessarily
1244
ancient at all. An ancient monument includes any structure or area which, as well as being historic, is of architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest. A historic building may be any building of historic or architectural interest.
There must be many modern buildings in this country, built within this century, which are of architectural interest and therefore qualify as "historic buildings" for the purposes of this legislation. Many of those historic buildings are in private ownership and many of the intellectual property rights that relate to them will be privately owned. Indeed, there may be intellectual property rights that relate to monuments and buildings in public ownership where the rights themselves are privately owned.
For instance, someone may decide to paint a picture of Stonehenge or the Palace of Westminster. The artist brings into being a copyright which, in ordinary language, would relate to the historic building being painted, and that copyright would belong to the artist. In relation to modern buildings that qualify as "historic buildings" under the definition, architect's plans must exist in respect of which there is still subsisting copyright. I cannot believe that the intention behind new Section 33 was to enable English Heritage to exploit those privately-owned rights. I imagine the intention was simply that the exploitation would be of rights which belonged to English Heritage or were otherwise publicly owned and could be exploited by English Heritage in producing films and books.
It surely could not have been intended that the exploitation of intellectual property rights relating to ancient monuments and historic buildings should enable the expropriation of privately owned rights. Indeed, the Minister could not have made the Human Rights Act statement which appears on the facing page of the Bill if that had been the intention. So it seems to me that the drafting of the proposed Section 33B and its intention requires some clarification.
I find it difficult to contemplate that there could be a patent which related to an ancient monument or historic building. One cannot think of everything, but how that could come into being beats me. It is difficult to see how there could be a trademark in relation to ancient monuments, but there could certainly be many copyrights.
That is one aspect of the legislation which requires attention. Those are the only points I want to draw to your Lordships' attention. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, we have just listened to a speech of great distinction, grasp and comprehensive knowledge from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote.
The noble and learned Lord has led a life of awe-inspiring diversity. He went to school in Natal, attended the universities of Cape Town and Cambridge and was Begelow Fellow at the University of Chicago. He has been Editor-in-Chief of the

1245
Supreme Court—the official guide to civil procedure—and most famously conducted the inquiry into and wrote the report on defence-related exports to Iraq, the Scott report. Now his immensely distinguished career has been crowned by his being made a Law Lord. While we realise how fully occupied he will be by his duties, we hope that he will again participate in debate in your Lordships' House when he is able.
Culture online will be a major enterprise of the Government, becoming the first website to produce comprehensive coverage of the arts. Although there are arts and cultural websites producing to a high standard, they are not numerous and there is at present a significant gap in the presentation on the Internet of serious and inspiring cultural materials.
My noble friend the Minister referred to a new audience. Young people would benefit from a diverse and expanding website that has among its specific purposes the stimulation of creativity. But an audience unfamiliar with online services might also profit by it. I refer to older and retired members of society.
The new website is designed to be,
"available to the greatest number".
But at present too many feel that the Internet is not for them and are convinced that they would be incapable of gaining access to it. There is a prevailing sense among a large proportion of the older population that visiting the Internet is a complicated business beyond their capabilities and, moreover, that most of what is accessible there is aimed at a much younger generation, inevitably focusing on pop music, shopping and so forth. But many such people have a particular interest in culture and the arts while others, on retirement, experience an awakening or reawakening of such interest. Culture online can provide for them an introduction to Internet services as well as satisfying their search for cultural pursuits. They can always proceed to explore those independent cultural websites referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
I must here declare an interest as I benefit from libraries, both as a recipient of the public lending right and because they buy my books. Resource is the new body which will replace and combine the former Museums and Galleries Commission and the Library Advisory Council. Library standards in recent years have fallen, but things are improving and an audit of libraries shows that, for the first time since 1998, more library plans are recorded as good than as satisfactory. The library plans of 73 authorities have been assessed as good and a further 71 as satisfactory.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport says that he is determined to place our library services among the best in the world. Library plans show how local councils intend to develop their use of information technology, including plans for staff training, and improve access for all sections of the community through policy on location of libraries and their opening hours, charging policies and services for
1246
children and other groups. Overall plans of five local authorities were assessed as poor in the survey. The department will consider what guidance can be given to them to improve their position.
From April 2001 public library standards will be introduced to link library plans and performance monitoring of services and, for the first time, library authorities will be assessed on the quality of the service they provide rather than on their planning. The standards will cover key areas of service provision, among which will be location, access and book buying. Libraries too might make better use of online services. There has been too much disposal in recent years of library stocks of rare non-fiction works, which are valuable to scholars. A partial answer is for libraries to preserve such works electronically. It is to be hoped that culture online will inspire them to do that.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, on his maiden speech. In one of my ministerial appointments I found that he was my personal legal adviser. I think that he had the title of being my attorney-general, which was very grand. I found his advice impeccable. I am particularly glad that he gave his maiden speech not as a Law Lord on legal matters but on the more general matters to which he referred. I hope that he will bear in mind the comment made of Lord Mansfield, the great 18th century lawyer. It was said of him that he was not a mere lawyer; he drank champagne with the wits.
At the end of the day, this is an itsy-bitsy trivial Bill. To misquote Gilbert, it is a thing of threads and patches, of pallid songs and snatches. It is the sort of Bill which is tucked in at the end of a Parliament when there is no other important legislation and every section head in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is asked to open a bottom drawer and pull out proposals which they have had for years and which have not been able to be put through.
Perhaps I may say to your Lordships that this is an enormous missed opportunity. As we draw to the end of this Parliament I had hoped that the Government and the Secretary of State would have chosen this moment to set out what they have achieved in their cultural policy over the past four years—in many areas it is considered to be nothing short of disastrous—and perhaps establish a strategy for the future. However, we do not get that from the Bill. I find that disappointing. When this Government came into office in 1997, if there was one area of public policy we felt they would get right and for which they had an instinctive feel, it was culture and the arts. After all, all the "luvvies" in the 1990s openly supported new Labour. They thought that with the election a new dawn would break, money would flow, and all those things which the Tories had cramped for 18 years would grow and flourish. However, that has not been the case.
One major problem is the fact that the cultural agenda of this Government has not been directly determined by the Department for Culture, Media and

1247
Sport, but very largely by No. 10. There has been enormous meddling from No. 10. Does the Minister recall the parties in 1997, to which pop stars were invited, to stretch out to the young, new generation? It was then found that all those pop icons had feet of clay—and, I also understand today, wandering hands—so they were quickly dropped.
Your Lordships will recall "Cool Britannia", which was to be the pulling together of all the great design efforts of our country to revolutionise, galvanise and lead. That particular kite flew for six months before it thudded to the ground. Then there was the Dome. This is not the occasion to debate the Dome, but perhaps I may say that it has been not only a financial disaster but a cultural disaster. There was a cultural agenda for the Dome. Indeed, the Prime Minister said on one occasion that the first line in his next manifesto would be about the Dome. I look forward to him fulfilling that pledge in the course of the next three months or so.
I am particularly bitter about the Dome because hundreds of millions of pounds were thrust at it when, at the very same time, a modest amount of money could not be found for the wonderful little Greenwich Theatre to keep it open. I have been there several times. The best production of "The Duchess of Malfi" I ever saw was at that theatre. It is now closed. Indeed their lack of support for regional theatres is a great stain upon this Government. A theatre in my former constituency has also had no support from them.
However, on one area of the Bill the Government did have a policy. They had a films policy, which was announced by Chris Smith in 1997. The Government wanted to establish three studios, on the pattern of the Hollywood studios. So far they have spent £119 million on the project. Each group was given about £30 million. What has been produced? After four years, one group has not produced a film. Does it take four years to make a film? We won a world war in four years. Another group has produced 11 films. Ten were not profitable. They were so awful that hardly anyone has seen them. Where is the success of the Government's films policy? They changed the direction of the policy last year by saying, "We will now support some more commercially-viable films". Why should public money support commercially-viable films? What is the public benefit here? The public has not benefited from that expenditure of £119 million. The people who have benefited are various venture capitalists and private individuals. That is another area of considerable disgrace. The Government have pandered to the cultural vanity of the film world.
The cultural policy of this Government has been hesitant, muddled, fragmentary and inconsistent. Indeed, the poor Secretary of State, Chris Smith, has reached the position where he is not quite bad enough to be sacked but not quite good enough to be reappointed, if by any mischance the Government were to win the next election.
The Government's record is not one of which they can be proud. Indeed, the greatest cultural success of the past five years has no connection with what the
1248
Government have done. That success has been the regeneration of many of our major museums and galleries due to the wise, benevolent and far-seeing leadership of Lord Rothschild when he was responsible for distributing the heritage funds from the lottery. As a result, we have that magnificent square, the courtyard of the British Museum; the revamped courtyard of the Wallace Collection; the extension to the National Portrait Gallery; the Lowry Centre at Salford, the Hermitage Rooms at Somerset House; and the wonderful display of silver in the Gilbert Collection in Somerset House. That had nothing to do with this Government. They did not initiate any of it. All those projects were started in the lifetime of the previous government.
I turn to some of the unattractive aspects of the Bill. Much has been made of Schedule 5, which should never have appeared. Before the various spin merchants say, "Well, of course, the Minister didn't really understand", the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will know perfectly well that a Minister has to personally sign off every Bill. He must put his signature to it before it is approved. The Minister knew what he was about. Schedule 5 is a disgrace. I think that it should be dropped completely. We await the Minister's remarks in his amendments.
Schedule 5 betrays that this Government have an appetite for control. That seems extraordinary, but perhaps it is not. It is a real reversion to old Labour. They want to interfere with and control everything. They do not really like the arts very much but they want to control them. It is a disgrace that Schedule 5 should have appeared in any form. Now the Government have had to retreat as a result of a campaign. It reflects great honour on your Lordships that a retreat is under way before the Bill is debated. The campaign was led by the Government's natural supporters in the press, the Guardian and the Observer, and of course the chairmen and trustees of the museums.
That betrays the fact that this Government want to control everything. In the late lamented years of the Thatcher regime, Margaret Thatcher was often accused of being centralist, but not in the arts. We devolved power to the boards. We stood aside and did not interfere. In the area of education, again we devolved power to grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. We made polytechnics independent. I ensured that colleges of further education would be free bodies run by their boards. The Government are trying to unravel all of that by interfering and controlling. That is the true nature of this Government.
I turn to two specific aspects of the Bill. Resource is a body which has been put together sensibly. It is run by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting. We are very old friends. I believe that in his hands it will not go too far wrong. The purpose of Resource is to support the small museums and galleries. Perhaps I may here declare an interest. I am the trustee of the Museum of British Empire and Commonwealth. It has a superb collection of artefacts and archives of great

1249
historical importance right up to today. It has a wonderful sound archive of the past 100 years taken from the 54 member countries of the Commonwealth.
The museum is stranded in an historic building in Bristol which has required millions of pounds to be spent on its upkeep. It does not have sufficient money to mount a public display of its great collection. It needs £1 million but does not receive a significant amount of money from any government body. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, is in his place, my first appeal to Resource is to listen to me when I come with my begging bowl. The museum has a great collection and it is a disgrace that it is not on view to the public. We in this country should be most proud of that history because the development from empire to Commonwealth is one of our great historic achievements.
My second point relates to culture online. Again, perhaps I may declare an interest. I have various interests in software and data management companies and in companies trading on the Internet. None of them deals with culture; they deal with other issues. I view the Bill's proposals with considerable misgivings. I can see that the Government are trying to ensure that our country's enormous cultural heritage is more widely available, but I have to tell the Minister that it is already widely available.
If Ministers and government departments use the Internet as much as the young people of our country do they will know that one can already access the data bases of the National Gallery, the Tate and the National Portrait Gallery and can download. The National Portrait Gallery has digitised all its portraits so anyone can download any of them. Indeed, schools do so. The portraits are downloaded in such a way as to allow them to be reproduced but not to a high quality. If they are of magazine and book quality, the National Portrait Gallery makes a charge but for study purposes it does not.
How can culture online help that gallery, for example? The National Portrait Gallery has not digitised its photographic collection so culture online ought to be finding the money to do so. That is a most important role. In addition, the department of prints and drawings at the British Museum has one of the world's great collections dating from the 15th and 16th centuries to the present day. I have used the collection a great deal in the books I have produced, particularly on personal and social satires. The department carries some 30,000 such personal and social satires including the great caricatures of the 18th and 19th centuries. All those records are in book form and all should be digitised. However, the museum does not have the money to do it.
Will culture online provide money for the digitisation of such records? I refer not only to those held by this country's great institutions but also by the smaller regional ones. A student studying Turner, for example, can access the Turner collection at the Tate but he may also want to access Turner's paintings held all over the country, some in private hands and in other museums. However, he cannot do so because they
1250
have not been digitised. If culture online decides to provide money for doing so and then allows the museums and galleries to exploit their data base—it is their main wealth—I would support culture online.
However, there is obviously another agenda. The Explanatory Notes indicate that culture online will support the national curriculum. Is the Minister aware that in the next three years the BBC will put the entire national curriculum online? Is he aware that all four key stages, all revision courses relating to the national curriculum and all previous examination questions will be available from the BBC? Therefore, why is it proposed that culture online will support the national curriculum? It does not need its support.
It is also proposed that culture online will create courses and lectures. Is the Minister aware of the courses and lectures on culture run by the Open University and the departments of media in our universities and colleges? Such courses and lectures are already available but they need to be made more general. If culture online will do that, I am all in favour of it. However, there is a real danger of culture online going seriously off the rails from the beginning. Culture online needs a sophisticated search engine—much more sophisticated than Yahoo, Ask Jeeves or Alta Vista—which allows students to pick up all the references to Turner or whoever is being studied.
I hope that the Minister and the department take on board some of those points about culture online. If it is to be developed in the way envisaged in the Bill, we shall be producing a digitised Dome.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I welcome the Minister's announcement that he plans to make crucial amendments to the appointment of museums' and galleries' boards of trustees. The events leading up to this decision have demonstrated how strong is the feeling that our national museums and galleries should be left to their very competent and largely independent selves to conduct their own business and not be subject to any form of politicisation, however well-meaning.
The intention may have been a practical one, but it none the less left the boards exposed to future attempts to control the way they are run. What concerned me and many people was that the department blithely inserted sweeping powers to change the composition of their boards, seemingly oblivious of the unease this would cause. When it was pointed out they responded that they had no intention of using them anyway. This seems a rather cavalier way of conducting affairs.
I shall come back to certain details still remaining in Clause 38 and Schedule 5 in a moment. But, first, I want to speak about the establishment of culture online. In principle, I welcome this new and innovative-sounding website. By harnessing the vast cultural and educational resources to be found in public museums, galleries, archives and libraries, it will have the power to transform the way individuals access what is happening in the arts and sciences and give them greater opportunities to participate.

1251
However, in spite of a loudly trumpeted but brief press release, there has been little information on how the site will be developed and what it will contain. The Government are not planning to publish their "Vision Report", as I understand it will be called, on the subject until the summer, which means that all we have to go on at the moment is the Bill itself.
If that is the case, a good many questions are left unanswered. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has already alluded to them; for instance, what is the Government's vision for culture online; what are the means of sustaining and operating it; and, of course, the vital question, how will it be paid for?
Without a published consultation document to go on, I would like to make one or two observations about the possible effect on museums and galleries, plus a few other matters. I anticipate that culture online could be a very useful and educational tool if the Government follow the model of, for example, the Kids Link London project which puts schools in touch with cultural institutions in the capital. The site may also be a way for people of all ages to have long-distance access to museum collections. I welcome this but, like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I am concerned that the pressure to digitise collections will be an onerous and costly task for large and small museums alike.
I have taken soundings from several museums, both national and regional, which are worried that they will be expected to undertake the enormous extra burden of putting their collections online without additional funding. This will have the likely consequence of drawing away funds from existing services. I would therefore like to ask the Government whether they have taken that into consideration and are planning to provide additional resources.
Once set up, will culture online require large amounts of revenue funding from the DCMS at the expense of the department's existing clients? And will the DCMS be able to contain the level of funding that such an ambitious site will require?
There is also concern that culture online may hinder the money-making schemes of some museums. With regard to intellectual property, will culture online pay museums for the use of their collections? If so, how will it be evaluated? Will culture online expect to share in the proceeds from licensing museum material for use on the web? If so, it will undermine one of the major sources of self-generated revenue. It goes without saying that the new body should not duplicate existing services which are already publicly funded.
As far as concerns current government-funded art websites, I commend the Art Council's ArtsOnline.com. I declare an interest as a sculptor who looks forward to benefiting from such sites as ArtsXchange, where working artists can pass on resources and information on subjects from studio space to funding. However, that is still at the embryonic stage of its development. Is there to be a regulatory framework to govern culture online? It would be a shame if artistic creativity was unnecessarily censored. Clearly, there must be some limits but they should not be unduly restrictive.
1252
The Bill also contains wide-ranging powers for culture online to acquire or dispose of land and bodies corporate. I am concerned that we are being asked to give powers without being aware at this stage of the purpose to which they will be put. That is particularly worrying when sums of the order of tens of millions of pounds are being talked about.
I return to Clause 38 and Schedule 5. 1 am relieved that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has dropped the most contentious element. However, even now, although changes to the museum boards' constitutions have to be made with their consent (and not just in consultation with them) it will for the first time be by order; thus without the same parliamentary scrutiny as before. The 12 museums and galleries named in this Bill are extremely varied in size and content. For various historical, but still relevant, reasons each of the boards differs in composition and size from the next. In drawing up the Bill the Government appear to be concerned more by untidiness than evidence of whether the individual boards run the museums effectively. By and large, they do it extremely well.
Only last week the National Museum Directors Conference declared that no grounds for changing the constitution of the boards. The proposals in the Bill were laid before Parliament without full discussion with the boards. In September a consultation exercise was carried out in which trustees expressed strong views and were given to understand that the proposals would be consequently withdrawn. However, before that could happen they had already been introduced in the Lords in modified form. For example, it was originally proposed that the Prime Minister should appoint the chairman of each board. That was strenuously resisted and the Bill was amended so that appointment would be by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport but without consulting the boards. It is, therefore, not surprising that museums and galleries are reluctant to trust government, in spite of well-meaning legislative intentions. There is certainly room for improvement in the way that boards are constituted and chairmen and trustees selected. I shall be interested to see whether the order-making powers enable that to happen for those institutions that require it.
Perhaps I may refer to one small detail. It has been pointed out to me that in relation to the Imperial War Museum, Schedule 5 to the Bill makes no mention of the trustees appointed by seven Commonwealth countries or the Secretary of State for Defence who are much valued by the museum. I hope that that is merely an oversight and that the Government will reassure the museum on this matter.
One problem referred to by several museum directors is the length of time taken to appoint new trustees. The Government cited that as a reason for streamlining the 12 museum boards. The delays occur in part because appointments are public ones, which means that strict, sometimes long-winded, procedures must be adhered to. In some cases that leads to boards being as much as 30 per cent below their maximum number. Can the Government make any suggestions

1253
as to how that can be tackled in its own right? I have also learnt that the current system whereby three names must be submitted for each trustee appointed leads to an unsatisfactory situation in which two out of three people are rejected for an unpaid post that they were approached to apply for in the first place. That causes personal disappointment and even animosity. Is there any way that the system can be amended to avoid such a situation?
In conclusion, I offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, whose speech I look forward to hearing after me, in their quest for legislation for the maintenance of sites and monuments records. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, explained, at the moment these records are maintained—often they are not maintained at all—in a rather haphazard manner. Given that this Bill is the first measure for several years to deal with our important archaeological heritage, will the Government rethink the way that records are currently maintained in order to make them more useful and accessible to local people? In addition, it would be commendable if the Government saw fit to widen the current successful Portable Antiquities pilot scheme to a nation-wide network.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, this Bill represents the first legislative product under the present Government of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the field of what used to be called national heritage, and as such it is welcome. Culture online perhaps holds promise. The provisions on underwater archaeology and protected wrecks are long overdue, although one should note in passing that the financial provision necessary for undertaking these matters by English Heritage has not yet been secured.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, with his characteristic modesty referred to a certain lack of coherence in the Bill, for where is the vision? In December in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, to whose speech we look forward, the House considered the report of English Heritage Power of Place. Although that report had some limitations, it made a whole series of useful recommendations, some of which are obvious and long recognised by all who work in this area. Where are they? It may be argued that that report was published only a few weeks ago, but is it too much to expect the department to be abreast of the areas of responsibility of English Heritage? If so, perhaps I may direct the attention of your Lordships to the Green Paper Protecting our Heritage published in 1996, in the days when, as my noble friend Lady Anelay observed, we still had a department of national heritage, under the signature of my right honourable friends Virginia Bottomley and William Hague. That report recommended many useful things, including the provisions of the present Bill relating to maritime archaeology which date back to 1990 when the Environment White Paper noted that,
"archaeology on land and water should be treated on an equal footing".
1254
But where are the other provisions recommended in 1996 in Protecting our Heritage? Can the Minister say when we can expect a response to English Heritage's Power of Place and last month's report of the working party chaired by Professor Palmer on the traffic in illicit cultural property? Some of us hoped for recognition of these matters in the present Bill. More particularly, why have the recommendations in Protecting our Heritage in 1996 been overlooked?
To be candid, my fear is that Ministers may not be familiar with the detail of these matters; nor are perhaps civil servants within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport precisely because they often leave them to English Heritage. But the hand of English Heritage is not seen in this Bill, unless it be in the useful single pair of clauses which deal with maritime archaeology.
English Heritage recommended years ago that the provision of sites and monuments records by local authorities should be made a statutory responsibility. That has been reiterated in the briefing to this Bill, with the emphasis that it should be done in modern format. I fully endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in that respect.
My impression that this Bill has been pasted together by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials without coherent guidance from Ministers, or adequate consultation with English Heritage and other relevant bodies, is confirmed by the already notorious Schedule 5 which deals with the trustees of national museums. Having just completed a 10-year term as trustee of the British Museum, I would be willing to speak with vehemence on that theme, but the matter has been sufficiently alluded to, and no doubt will be dealt with further. But we shall certainly be scrutinising the amendments when we see them. Furthermore, I am sure that many noble lords will want to defend the integrity and autonomy of those wonderful components of our national heritage—the national museums.
The Bill, which is the only heritage fruit of the Government, is something—if your Lordships will pardon the expression—of a lemon. To call it a mouse would be to exaggerate its energetic propensities. What about value added tax on museum charges? What about value added tax on the repair of historic buildings? What about proper support on a national basis for the portable antiquities voluntary reporting scheme, which is one of the Government's admirable innovations in the heritage field? What about a proper statutory basis for local museums?
I turn to the 1996 Green Paper, Protecting our Heritage. In that there are a number of useful proposals. I do not understand why they have been omitted. My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking was quite right, the draftsmen looked in the bottom drawer but did not rummage deep enough to produce them. Paragraph 4.2.1 states:
"It is proposed to make it an offence to remove finds from scheduled sites in England without the prior consent of English Heritage".

1255
That is a long needed provision, albeit a minor one. Paragraph 4.2.2 has a suggestion for a similar offence in relation to the
"disturbance to archaeological monuments".
Paragraph 4.2.3 refers to a restriction of general authorisation for works on scheduled monuments.
These are minor but much needed amendments which one would expect to find in the first Bill in the heritage field—the only Bill it may prove to be—of the Government. But we do not see them.
Paragraph 4.4 of that Green Paper recommends increasing
"the maximum tine for offences … concerning … damage to scheduled monuments".
Where is that provision? Paragraph 4.6 states that there should be
"enforcement powers in respect of monuments".
Where are these necessary provisions? Above all—here I hope we shall have comment from the Minister—as the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Freyberg, mentioned, paragraph 4.13 states that the Government agree with the view—that is the previous government I suppose—that local authorities should be placed under a duty to maintain sites and monuments records.
If we are told that there are financial objections, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has already quoted the following clause in paragraph 4.14, that,
"the Government considers that the cost of this step would be 'de minimis"
That information for minor as well as major sites and monuments is not only needed for planning and the working of PPG16, where it is important and necessary, but there are great possibilities for the use of such information; for example, in culture online if the matter moves in that direction. The sites and monuments records should not only be the statutory basis for planning decisions, but they have the potential to inform people about local sites and monuments in their own areas. They have educational, cultural and recreational possibilities which are insufficiently exploited. There will be Back-Bench amendments on these issues.
The very unfortunate situation in a number of counties—not least Buckinghamshire, Leicestershire and Worcestershire—has already been alluded to. The situation is about to collapse due to economies made by local authorities. Despite good intentions, they find this an easy issue to cut and save money on, precisely because there is no statutory provision.
The Bill is a disappointment. It gives no leadership in heritage matters. There is no vision. In particular it is extraordinary that there is no partnership with English Heritage. I do not understand why the proposals in the 1996 Green Paper have not been addressed. The Bill represents a regress on the position established in 1996; the interests of the national heritage are not sufficiently well-considered nor adequately advanced.
1256
I have one technical question. The Explanatory Notes on the Bill include the statement that it is very desirable to bring about the formal merger of English Heritage and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. In practice they have been successfully assimilated. But I find no mention in the Bill of that useful technical provision which is so boldly spoken of on the first page. I would welcome clarification on that point.
In conclusion, I, like other noble Lords, welcome most of the provisions in the Bill, but for all the talk of Christmas trees, Christmas is not yet here, nor indeed is the new year because little thought has gone into the drafting of the Bill. For me that is a great disappointment. My noble friend Lord Baker spoke of the expectations that we had of the Government in the culture and heritage field. I do not believe that the Bill lives up to those fully warranted expectations.
5.5 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must declare a non-pecuniary interest. I am a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery, in which capacity, as in that as a Member of this House, I look forward to listening to my fellow trustee, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in a few minutes.
The National Portrait Gallery is a good ship. It is a happy ship. It is a tight ship. It is not broke, not: even financially. I do not see why anyone in Whitehall should believe it needs fixing.
I listened with great pleasure to what the Minister said earlier in the debate. The Minister has shot my fox. But shot foxes do not always die. So when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, proposing to put it out of its misery I could see some force in what he said. The decision as to what to do will obviously be a collective one. It is riot the sort that I would dream of taking on my own, although one might remember that one takes compromises as one takes taxis. But just for that reason one might remember the advice of Sherlock Holmes about taxis—remember to accept neither the first nor the second that may present itself.
I was a little surprised by the way this proposal emerged. I once had the pleasure of reading Mr Gladstone's letter of proposal. The second sentence included 141 words and 18 sub-clauses. The reply to that was: "Oh, Mr Gladstone, this is so sudden".
When the Bill appeared immediately before the adjournment on 21st December I was tempted to observe, "Oh, Mr Smith, this is so sudden'''. I was alerted to its existence on the telephone on the morning of 22nd December by the director of the National Portrait Gallery. I think that it is a good rule in politics to make a prima facie assumption that any news that is broken with quite that timing is likely to be had news. I do not see any occasion for abandoning that rule on this occasion.
There has been a general perplexity among those with whom I have discussed this measure about why it is being brought forward. So far as I can hear, it is not designed to meet any mischief which is perceived

1257
anywhere in the museum and gallery world. I do not think that this is a matter of party politics. Although it has been suggested by others, I do not think that this is a matter of trying to pack trusts with political cronies. I do not think it is a matter of political intervention in arts policies. Frankly, those who manage policy are not sufficiently interested in the arts to want to do that.
I tend to see the villain of the piece in the Treasury, which, like the poor, is always with us. One wonders whether those two propositions may in some way be connected. The relations between Whitehall and Westminster are those of poacher and gamekeeper. I shall not presume to say which of those two might be which. The Treasury always reminds me of the remark made by Susan Kramer, whom I am tempted to refer to as my honourable friend, although formally she is not. She said: "No self-respecting business would let its finance department have that much power".
The nightmare of Whitehall is that it always fears being accountable for public money over which it has no control. I understand that feeling. It is an honourable one. But it conflicts with other priorities which occasionally also need to be remembered. Where one has clashes of priorities, one always needs negotiation. In fact, Whitehall, and the Treasury in particular, tends to regard public money as something like a barium meal. It is not enough to make it over to the body that receives it; it must be followed in its progress through that body to see exactly what is happening to it. Every now and then that is like digging up a plant to see how it is growing. It tends to interfere.
I am not particularly afraid of political interference in the management of the National Portrait Gallery. I am afraid of something like an assessment of the unit costs of our lighting. That is the kind of priority with which the Treasury is concerned. I remember how brilliantly the Tudor portraits at the opening of the Ondaatje Wing were lit—the lighting has a great artistic significance. So interference with the lighting is necessarily an interference with artistic priorities. That is what I want to avoid. It is what I always want to avoid.
I find the formal text of the schedule rather alarming. It is what I always describe as a Cambyses clause, after Cambyses, King of Persia, who had a law saying that he could do whatever he liked. I ask myself what is the common factor between the museums and galleries listed in Schedule 5. It is fairly clear and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, to which I owe much thanks, has confirmed what I thought was the case. The common factor is simply that they are the museums and galleries whose trustees are covered by Acts of Parliament. In the poachers and gamekeepers image, when Whitehall uses the word "flexibility", what it means is reduced parliamentary control.
We in this House have something of a vested interest in checking those requests for flexibility and not allowing them uniformly without challenge. Some of them are justified; some of them are not; and some of them need to be refined before they become law. So
1258
when I am told that we need flexibility, what I hear is that we need less parliamentary control. I might be convinced of that in some points but it must be done in detail. The common factor is the desire to increase Whitehall control.
I do not think that this is a party matter. I was looking just now at the quotation from Hugo Young in the excellent brief prepared by your Lordships' Library. He described the independence of trustees as,
"a typically British paradox, a cherished guarantee of the arm's-length independence successive governments have allowed to national institutions that are none the less subsidised by public money".
When I read those words, I was suddenly reminded of the business of my maiden speech—the Education Reform Bill of 1988 and the abolition of the University Grants Committee. The University Grants Committee had just that degree of independence which trustee bodies have now. We still miss that very badly. If we let our opportunity to change this proposal slip, we may regret it for a very long time.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, the Bill covers so many subjects that it is difficult to determine just how many interests one should declare, but for the sake of the record I am President of the Southern Tourist Board, President of the Friends of Royal Osborne and of course past Chairman of English Heritage and past President of the Museums Association.
I feel that the Bill is rather like a curate's egg, but I certainly welcome the formal merger of English Heritage with the Royal Commission on the Historic Monuments of England. I welcome this particularly because in 1983, when the National Heritage Bill was being debated in the House, I failed to persuade your Lordships to accept an amendment I had moved to create such a merger. Better late than never. However, I particularly approve of transferring underwater archaeology to English Heritage, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, that will need money—a minimum of £1 million a year—for the necessary equipment, boats, divers and so on.
The provisions to give English Heritage freedom in trading and general commercial activities both at home and abroad must surely be right, as long as it is allowed by the Treasury to keep its profits for investment in other heritage activities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that there seems to have been an apparent lack of co-ordination and consultation with English Heritage about the Bill as it could have been a marvellous opportunity to cover other requirements in the heritage field.
The Bill also includes the formalisation of the much regretted demise of the English Tourist Board and the creation of the new English tourism council. This is of course a completely different body with a different brief and is there to provide advice, carry out research and generally provide help for the industry and also for small businesses with tourist interests. The jury is out on its effectiveness so far, although some good

1259
progress has been made. The new council lacks sufficient resources and thus can do very little to create sustainability. For instance, it is not concerned with marketing, which is surely the life-blood of tourism. Observing the rather different situation in Scotland and Wales, with their national boards, the lack of a strong centre for English tourism means that the British tourist product is weakened in spite of the efforts of the British Tourist Authority. The name ofEngland is conspicuous by its absence on the world scene. I do not see how the English tourism council can do its job properly and achieve its objectives unless it has the appropriate resources devoted to it.
A bad part of the egg concerns the appointments to the boards of the national museums. I do not intend to say much more on that subject except to remind your Lordships that the prestige of our national museums is all-important, especially for their academic credibility and international reputation. Not only must they be independent but they must also be seen to be independent. The reaction of the present trustees to interference was entirely predictable. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I find it rather depressing that there does not seem to be a national institution in this country over which the Government do not seem to wish to seek more control by one means or another and extend their patronage for their friends.
I now turn to Osborne, which is certainly the better part of the egg. It seems rather apt, if not ironical, that here we are discussing the future of Osborne within two or three days of the 100th anniversary on 22nd January of the death of Queen Victoria. The new King Edward VII unfortunately hated the place because of childhood memories and could not wait to get it off his hands. As a result of an Act in 1902 the state apartments were opened to the public and the rest of the building was designated as a convalescent home for the Armed Forces. Having been in charge of Osborne for some years, I can confirm that over the years there was inevitably a clash of interests between the needs of the convalescent home and those of the public visitors. Indeed, until about 20 years ago, the house was open only on weekdays in the summer and visitors were not even allowed to go out on the terrace to enjoy the gardens. Although run by the relevant government department, it was the governor of the convalescence home who called the tune. Of course, over the years, since all the contents remain, as they do today, the property of the monarch, various items were removed for use in other royal residences, led by the redoubtable Queen Mary, and alterations were made, such as creating a flat for the governor.
English Heritage was charged with responsibility for Osborne in the mid-1980s and, under my chairmanship, it was resolved that we should be determined to return the House as near as possible to how it was when Queen Victoria lived there. It cannot be said too often that Osborne is not and never was a royal palace. It was created and used as a private family home, a principle which Her late Majesty Queen Victoria defended with great vigour.
1260
Careful restoration has continued ever since 1986. I was especially proud of recreating the night nursery, strictly following a contemporary photograph, from the state in which it had been converted into a flat for the governor. Recently, the original layout of the garden beds and the restoration of the kitchen garden has been achieved. Furthermore, as soon as I arrived, I improved the circulation for the public better to tell the story of the House.
While the convalescent home was in situ, what Osborne lacked was anything to show what went on beyond the green baize door, in particular showing how "below stairs" worked and the contribution that had to be made to such a house by the domestic staff. There is now a great opportunity to show where the shoes and silver were cleaned, the servants hall and how the Court officials lived and to open this part of the building which, if properly displayed, will certainly enhance the visit and give a far more complete picture of life at Osborne. I can confirm that the general public are often much more interested in the kitchens than they are in grand pictures.
Other ideas spring to mind. For instance, would there be an opportunity to have some rooms restored for residential use, either temporary or permanent? I suspect, however, that the idea of a hotel, which appealed to me initially, might fail owing to the seasonal nature of the tourist trade in the Isle of Wight. I have no doubt that the local people on the island would welcome opportunities to use the building for various functions, which surely can be accommodated not only in the public areas but also in the convalescent home wing. In view of the growing interest in Victorian matters, perhaps the Victorian Society could be invited to establish a centre for Victorian studies and make it the world headquarters for research and information. Surely that would be an extremely worthy project for English Heritage support.
Early on this year concern was expressed by local people over changes proposed for the Durbar Room but now that what is intended has been explained to me, I am content. I believe that it will work well. There is also enormous potential in the restoration of the stable block as an information centre and area for special exhibitions and so forth.
It must be remembered at all times that, since the contents belong to Her Majesty and the Royal Collections, great care must be taken in any restoration plan. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that there can be no doubt that Osborne is the jewel in the Victorian crown of life—the fountainhead of Victorian style and fashion. It is paramount that it should never be forgotten that the house was built as a home and should he presented as such. Let it echo with the voices of all those royal children and their beloved father who, with Thomas Cubitt, designed and—as far as Prince Albert was concerned—built parts of it with his own hands. I trust that English Heritage will be given the freedom to make it all come alive again. Queen Victoria's attachment to Osborne, where she died 100 years ago, deserves the fullest and best recognition of its value to the national heritage.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, long ago, a Bishop sacked his butler for the crime of purloining the episcopal port and drinking it. The Bishop was merciful and the butler was penitent. He asked for a reference. The Bishop wrote:
"To whom it may concern: This man has much in him which is very good".
So does this Bill. I hope that my noble friend will be merciful to me if I now concentrate on the one thing which is very bad; to wit, Clause 38 and the troublesome Schedule 5.
I must first declare a longstanding interest in museums as a former chairman of the Museums and Galleries Commission and as a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery since 1979—much longer than current government policy would permit. But one of the benefits of long service is that I have been able to witness at first hand the hugely beneficial changes in the system of trustee governance that have taken place. It is those achievements which are potentially jeopardised by Schedule 5. It was good to hear today from my noble friend that concessions have been agreed to the original form of the schedule, These have been leaked and trailed in the newspapers, but not everything so published can be relied on as the gospel truth. One honourable Member of another place shouted at the late Mr Speaker Thomas, Viscount Tonypandy, "It must be true, Mr Speaker. It's in the newspaper this morning". "So's my horoscope!" cried the Speaker, and we all know what he meant.
In its original printed form, Schedule 5 reads like an attack on the whole trustee system in the national museums. One wonders why. The object of all the changes seems to be to get the trustees more firmly under DCMS control. Why? They have done nothing wrong. Indeed, they have been a triumph and success in recent years. Twenty years ago, there might have been a need to spur them into action, but when I joined the National Portrait Gallery in 1979, everything was on the move.
In 1979, the gallery was recovering from the shock of being brought kicking and screaming into the 20th century under the dynamic leadership of Dr Roy Strong. During the 1980s, under Dr John Hayes, responsibilities were devolved by central government on to the board of trustees, in particular for fundraising and the management of the gallery's buildings after the demise of the Property Services Agency. In 1993, we opened new ground floor galleries and a new archive and library funded by Drue Heinz. Last year, the Queen opened our new Ondaatje Wing, in which that philanthropist took both a financial and a deep personal interest. Government and the National Heritage Lottery Fund added their support, but none of this would have happened without the energies and the commitment of the board of trustees and, in particular, of the two elected chairmen, who applied themselves to the task of fundraising. We now have well over a million visitors a year.
The National Portrait Gallery is not unique; it is typical. Much the same story could be told of the other 11 organisations targeted for hamstringing in Schedule
1262
5. The vast Great Court project at the British Museum and the stupendous achievement of the Tate Modern on Bankside are just leading examples of what has been done by the trustees of those bodies. The old cry of, "Trust the Trustees!" could hardly be more triumphantly vindicated.
As I read through Schedule 5 earlier this week, I asked myself why I found its proposals so dismally discouraging and wrongheaded. I had no difficulty whatever in establishing eight brief reasons. First, the record of the individual trustee museums has been so spectacularly good that the public is very pleased with us. There has been no public outcry for change or improvement in any of the national museums and galleries.
Secondly, no evidence has been put forward to suggest that the changes proposed in Schedule 5 would improve anything. Thirdly, the only body which might find its work a little easier or a little more congenial would be the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Fourthly, such would be the hiring and firing power of the Secretary of State that good new trustees would be harder to find. All trustees work for nothing and sometimes end up out of pocket. As W.H. Auden once wrote:
"Why spit on your luck?".
Fifthly, the power of the Secretary of State's veto would greatly discourage existing trustees, especially when suggesting their chairman. As that wise and perceptive journalist, Hugo Young, wrote recently,
"what body of trustees, dependent on public funds, will ignore the furrowing of the ministerial brow at their proffered name? Consultation equals veto … The present system keeps chairmen independent, and binds them to their trustees. All speak with one voice in the interests of the museum. Typically, they did so in many institutions to preserve the principle of free entry. A chairman dependent on government approval is a different animal".
Sixthly, Schedule 5 does not devolve power to the people who must make and be responsible for decisions. It centralises power in Cockspur Street. I need hardly remind my noble friends on this side of the House that when we were in opposition that is precisely what we condemned the party opposite for doing.
Seventhly, it also holds out the enticing possibility that the Secretary of State may,
"confer on the Board the function of appointing one or more members of the Board".
Few of those deemed suitable to be trustees are likely to be attracted or retained by the exciting opportunity to exercise such earth-shaking and unfettered power.
Finally, eighthly, Schedule 5 holds forth the shining prospect that, after such reforms, all these museums and galleries will be governed and ordered by the same rules and regulations. There will be, we are promised, "consistency", as if that abstract concept were, beyond all question or debate, a good thing devoutly to be wished. Not so. To quote Hugo Young again, on the subject of museum chairpersons:
"At present. these chairmen's posts are usefully untidy, but mostly united by the single thread of independent appointment".

1263
"Usefully untidy". Quite so. Noble Lords should think of the old naval proverb "different ships, different long splices", and it is immediately clear that the V&A cannot and should not be governed or managed in precisely the same way as the National Gallery. Consistency in this is not a virtue, it is a straitjacket.
So much for what lies before us, in print, in the Bill as published. What continues to puzzle me is why the DCMS did not foresee the total opposition, or even furore, that this schedule would provoke. Or maybe it did foresee it but resolved to "tough it out", insisting on what it originally wanted. Or was it meant as an extreme position from which it could negotiate its way to a compromise, which would give it all it really wanted in the first place? Why was the schedule not discussed in detail with the chairpersons, and even perhaps with the directors, before it was finalised?
The concessions announced today seem to have been the result of a hastily-convened, late evening meeting with as many of the chairpersons as could be assembled at very short notice, and the question must be asked: are they enough? Will those concessions restore the trust between the museums and the department, which has been shaken by the protests and rumours of the past week? If they got together again the department might say "Right. That is all you are getting. Not another inch. No surrender". The museums might demand the total withdrawal of Schedule 5, root and branch, hook, line and sinker, horse, foot and guns, and its replacement with only such changes as have the full consent of all the trustees concerned.
I shall await eagerly my noble friend's reactions to my worries and concerns and hope that, in his usual clear-headed and fair-minded way, he can propose a solution which will give us "a happy issue out of all our afflictions". Until then, I can only advise all of your Lordships who care about these things to adopt the position recommended by T.S. Eliot—I have mentioned this before; I make no apology for mentioning it again—in those lines from one of the choruses in The Rock, remembering the words of Nehemiah the Prophet,
"The trowel in the hand. and the gun rather loose in the holster".
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Bill contains some good innovations and some big omissions, about which we have already heard. For my part, there are some questions I should like to put to the Minister.
My first question concerns Part II, Clauses 16 and 17. Clause 16(9) concerns the word "constable", which includes a park constable. I understand that the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and certain other open spaces are included in this measure. The section states that,
"a person is authorised to accept payment of a fixed penalty if he is authorised in writing by the relevant Minister for that purpose or he is an employee of such a person".
I am not aware of constables patrolling Kew Gardens. Perhaps the Minister can tell me if I am wrong.
1264
How is a member of the public to know who is entitled to tell them that they are offending and must be fined? Surely a nice little racket could easily be set up unless authorised enforcers are easily identifiable. Equally, if the fixed penalty is to be paid through the post, how would a constable know that he had been given a bona fide name and address?
Turning to Part III, I very much welcome the new functions relating to underwater archaeology. I should like to know whether it would be possible to amalgamate the separate bodies in UK territorial waters adjacent to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that an umbrella organisation—if that is the right word when one is talking about underwater matters—could cover this very important and interesting work. As things stand, I am not quite sure how it will be decided where the boundaries lie. En passant, I very much welcome the proposed new trading functions of the commission.
I turn now to Clause 41, which, quite frankly, puzzles me. I should like the Minister to explain what is meant by the ending of the Secretary of State's obligation to use parts of Osborne House and grounds for the benefit of members of the Armed Forces and the Civil Service. During the time that I was Lords' spokesman for the then Department of Heritage, I spent a day at Osborne House and I visited the royal apartments—which are, of course, as my noble friend Lord Montagu said, an amazing insight into the life of Queen Victoria, especially this year which is the centenary year of her death in that House. As my noble friend said, this is such an important place that one has to be terribly careful as to what one does with it in the future.
I also visited the other side, where civil servants and members of the Armed Forces can convalesce after an illness or an operation. It seemed to me to be a really well run establishment. I may be out of date on this. Am I wrong in thinking that it still exists in this shape? Are people still being well looked after in lovely surroundings? If it is still being used as a convalescent home, it would be a tragedy if its future is threatened. I should be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me.
Finally, I turn to Clause 42, which concerns the removal of the requirement for the Secretary of State to give written consent for the erection of a public statue in a public place in Greater London. The clause says nothing about the removal of statues from public places. Your Lordships will recall that there has been much talk recently about the Mayor of London's wish to remove some of the lesser known ones. I am deeply concerned that the erection of new statues should be in the gift of the Mayor. Unless the Minister can reassure me, I shall table an amendment to make sure that future and present statues are not liable to one man's whim.
Incidentally, where do individual London councils stand with regard to the siting of statues? I have in mind, of course, the saga of the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh.

1265
I remember being told that Lee Kwan Yew had been asked when he first came to power whether he intended changing Singapore's street names and removing the statues of Queen Victoria. His reply was:
"Certainly not. Without the British we should still be a marsh".
The existing statues in London all commemorate those who rendered great service to this country in the past and who should not be forgotten. There is masses of room for more statues in Greater London, perhaps even one of the first mayor of London—although, please God, not in Trafalgar Square! But then, who knows? In 50 years' time, one of his successors might say, "Ken who? Off with his head!".
5.40 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I must declare an interest. For 15 years I was a trustee and, for nine of those years, until 1997, the chairman of the trustees of the Imperial War Museum—although I stress that I speak now in an entirely private capacity. Incidentally, the museum—I must keep my end up with the National Portrait Gallery—as a result of good co-operation with, but hitherto not excessive interference from, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has gone from strength to strength in terms of public interest, wider accessibility, greater visitor attendance and improvement in the revenue generated.
Now, without any prior warning, and with a minimum of consultation with the museums and galleries, this House is asked to approve a Bill which seems principally designed to give the department a greater role in the affairs of museums and galleries. Moreover, in the terms in which the Bill is currently couched—although I take note of the fact that the Minister proposes amendments which may go some way to correct that—the Bill opens up the possibility that at a later date it could be used, free from parliamentary control, to effect changes of a sweeping and in some instances unacceptable nature.
It is true that, as presently worded, the Bill has a number of positive aspects to it. For instance, the proposal to give boards of trustees greater freedom to appoint some of their own number is to be welcomed, as is the Secretary of State's indicated intention to speed up the present excessively time-consuming process of appointing trustees, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Freyberg, including, perhaps, handling the present prime ministerial approval at Secretary of State level. Museums and galleries boards which have a constitutional right to elect their own chairman will be pleased that the Secretary of State has decided that this procedure should continue—now, it seems, without any reservation or any veto by the Secretary of State.
There are, however, certain aspects of the proposals in Schedule 5 as it is presently drafted relating to the power to vary a particular board's constitution which could raise matters of considerable concern. The provision will have to be examined carefully when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, tables his proposed amendments—which, as I understand it, will
1266
require a board's consent before any changes can be made. I very much hope that in every way such consent will be uncoerced. Certainly, the powers in the Bill as originally drafted seem both excessive and potentially limitless—including the power to "amend any enactment".
Perhaps I may elaborate a little in relation to the museum that I know well. The Imperial War Museum was established in 1917 to commemorate and keep alive the memory of the sacrifices made by the British Empire as a whole in the First World War. The museum, which has its own Act of Parliament, was established in consultation with the then dominions of the Empire, and today it has a mandate to record the participation of all the Commonwealth countries in the many wars and engagements that have been fought since 1918. Thus, in its exhibits it has always embodied materials and artefacts from all those countries, as well as from the United Kingdom; and in its governance it has always been essentially a Commonwealth rather than a purely British national institution, with direct and active participation on the board of trustees by senior representatives of the major Commonwealth countries in London. These are currently the High Commissioners of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka. Although these High Commissioners are essential to the museum's constitution and purpose, and although they attend regularly, they are, unbelievably, not even mentioned in Schedule 5, which refers to the Imperial War Museum. My noble friend Lord Freyberg has already mentioned this. It seems a glaring omission. It could easily have been put right by a minimum amount of consultation.
There are, therefore, important reasons why the board of trustees of the Imperial War Museum was established as an independent statutory body under its own Act of Parliament and given its current structure; why it is a creature of Parliament, not an agency of government; and why any issues fundamental to its constitution and role should be determined by Parliament only after consultation with the other seven Commonwealth countries represented on the board—which, so far as I am aware, has not taken place—and indeed with the board itself.
The interests and influence of the Commonwealth countries which have supported the Imperial War Museum from the outset and have played a major role in its governance and development, and whose citizens visit the museum in their thousands each year, must be protected. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it would have been quite wrong for the Bill to obtain order-making powers without the board's consent which would place the Imperial War Museum on exactly the same footing as other purely national institutions.
Moreover, Section 1(2) of the Imperial War Museum Act 1955—the means by which Her Majesty the Queen, in Council, amends the membership of the board, and which the Bill proposes to repeal—would seem to be, as it stands, a sufficient and proper constitutional mechanism for seeing that the trustee membership reflects any changes in the membership of

1267
the Commonwealth that occur from time to time. Any repeal of that Act would suggest an assault on the museum's essentially Commonwealth status. Will the noble Lord give me an assurance also that such repeal cannot take place without the board's consent?
Does the omission of any reference to the two trustees currently appointed by the Foreign Secretary and the one appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence indicate some intention to remove their power so to nominate? I know from experience that the museum greatly values the direct linkage that these appointments give it with the two departments of state which are so highly relevant to the museum's life and work. Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on that point.
In conclusion, speaking purely personally, when I read the Bill I felt that, at least so far as museums and galleries were concerned, it savoured of empire building, tidiness for tidiness' sake, and over-government—all in a field in which direct government intervention, diminishing editorial independence for these institutions, would not serve the interest of the nation. Your Lordships have a deep obligation to study the Bill carefully, now and in Committee, to ensure that the changes to Schedule 5 proposed by the Government, at the 11th hour or after midnight, really do put the responsibility back where it belongs, at board or trustee level. We must also ensure that no financial pressures will be applied to try to influence the judgment of those boards.
5.50 p.m
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Royal Air Force Museum, a trustee of the Dorman Museum up in the North East and someone who is involved with many charitable interests, including the Royal Air Forces Association, to which I shall refer presently. With marine archaeology in mind, and as a past Minister for heritage, I had the privilege of listing the first wreck under the sea in the Solent between Southampton and the Isle of Wight.
The change of heart by the Secretary of State over Schedule 5 recorded today by the Minister is welcome. However, like many others, until we see the amendments to the schedule— and, indeed, to Clause 38—I shall reserve my judgment. It is the case that the Bill, as drafted, gives extensive and open-ended powers to Ministers, even to change the constitutions of statutory bodies without any parliamentary consent. There is also concern about the degree of ministerial control over the boards' choice of chairman. On the basis of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", can the Minister say what are the perceived problems with the boards? In other words, what problem does the Secretary of State believe that he is attempting to resolve by Schedule 5?
Independent boards have worked exceptionally well. They have not abused their independence; indeed, their independence has been used exclusively to further the aims and objectives of their institutions. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, just said,
1268
they are not agents of government; nor should they be. The arm's length principle is very important. When he concludes the debate, I look to the Minister to reassure me that the principle will not be compromised in any way. It would also be helpful if the noble Lord could confirm that the Government could not use powers to dictate the chairmanship or composition of a board or to remove at will any trustee for any political or other reason.
I turn now to the procedures for making appointments of trustees. I do so agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I especially agree with the point that they made about the need to submit three names only to reject two, who will almost certainly have been persuaded to put forward their names in the first place. No one would argue with the need to have a system that ensures the suitability of candidates to serve as trustees. However, the Nolan procedures that are laid down are wholly inflexible and, frankly, are absurd in particular situations.
First, the delays experienced are unacceptable. In the case of the RAF Museum, in respect of which I serve as a trustee, it is not uncommon for the process to take many months, sometimes even more than a year, to replace a trustee. Secondly, when a candidate is known professionally and personally to the Government—for example, senior military personnel or former Permanent Secretaries—what can possibly be the rationale for it to take months to clear the way for such people to be considered for appointment?
Trustees—certainly in the case of the RAF Museum—give their time and expertise willingly, voluntarily and without any financial returns, not even expenses. I believe that there is a danger of applying the Nolan procedures so inflexibly that we shall not attract the people with the necessary experience, enthusiasm and commitment to serve on our great institutions. We have been promised flexibility; but, as yet, I see no signs of progress.
I wish also to refer to the rules under which the National Lottery Charities Board operates. I know that this issue is not covered by the legislation now before us, but the Bill has a Long Title and I know that it allows for amendments. In order to raise my particular points of concern, I shall refer to a specific bid and the handling of the application for funds. Briefly, the Royal Air Forces Association, among other things, raises funds to make provision for former service personnel in order to alleviate disadvantage and personal care needs, both social and sometimes medical.
The association runs a nursing home in the Sussex Downs. Its latest project is to raise funds to provide an elderly mentally ill unit (EMI) for sufferers from Alzheimer's Disease and associated dementias. The project costs were £1.85 million, with the RAFA paying £500,000 from a fund raising campaign, together with a grant from the RAF Benevolent Fund of £950,000 and—it was hoped—a grant of a possible£400,000 from the Lottery.

1269
Perhaps I may say at the outset that I do not raise this issue because of the application being rejected. I accept, as does the Royal Air Forces Association, that some applications are successful, while others are not. I raise the issue to highlight a number of concerns that have arisen as a result of the way in which this bid was handled, as well as some general policies that affect government. The application was accepted for the first stage of the process—a stage which, as noble Lords know, incurs expenditure by the applicant. Part way through the second stage of assessment the bid was rejected. The rejection letter was hardly illuminating as it included a number of computerised paragraphs and only a very cursory reference to the specific bid.
The application was rejected on three grounds. First, that the project was outside the NLCB's funding policy; secondly, that the project could go ahead without lottery funds and that, therefore, it lacked a real need for NLCB funds in the first place; and, thirdly, because building work was due to start in October (of last year).
If the project did not meet the criteria, why was it accepted for stage one approval in the first place, and then passed on to stage two? This resulted in an unnecessary waste of time, effort and money on the part of the RAF Association—funds that can ill be afforded by any charity.
The second point of rejection—namely, that the project could go ahead without lottery funds—is a speculative point, and one that could be made about any fund-raising body if it were given enough time. The project could only continue if the Royal Air Forces Association found ways and means of raising the £400,000 needed. Building work had not started; indeed, it was not intended to start. It would be very unwise for work to begin on any project for which funds had not been secured. Apart from the time wasting, the speculation and the inaccurate accusation made by the NLCB that the project had started, there are other concerns.
The Government changed the lottery rules in 1998. I shall not bore the House with an endless list of grants that have been made to organisations that could be said to be providing a service to people which could have been, or perhaps ought to have been, provided by statutory authorities. Lottery monies have been provided for services to people with cancer, AIDS, alcohol problems, various phobias and for educational projects, for teachers and for nurses, in addition to many other good causes.
In the West Sussex area there is a serious shortage of provision for dementia sufferers and their carers. The voluntary sector was prepared to fund over two-thirds of the capital costs and to run the EMI unit—a truly supplementary service in what is, frankly, a black hole in provision in that area.
Can the Minister tell me what is less worthy about a project developed and managed by a charity providing for former servicemen and women, many of whom are veterans of the Second World War and suffering from dementia, when compared with projects providing
1270
services to sufferers from AIDS and/or cancer or those with alcohol problems, or education projects that have been accepted under the criteria?
Rejection of a lottery bid is always disappointing. However, when rejection is born out of a baffling interpretation of the criteria, and inaccurate information, it causes anger. We have only to contrast this sorry saga with the ease with which the Dome extracted lottery funds throughout the year almost without question. The long-drawn-out experience of this lottery application has caused much distress among some extremely hard-working volunteers and staff of a great charitable organisation, which is serving the needs of former service people. I hope that it will be possible for the president of the Royal Air Forces Association to meet the Secretary of State to discuss the way in which the 1998 Act is actually working and being applied; and to seek clarification of the definition of the criteria used for grant eligibility.
Finally, I turn to a point that I have raised previously about national museums which do not fall under the DCMS; namely, the free admission for children, for old-age pensioners and, over time, for all people. Not all government departments necessarily implement those concessions. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House what plans the Government have for consistency of policy across all national museums, irrespective of the sponsoring government department?
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, when I signed up to speak in this debate last week there were a handful of names above mine on the list. Today there are 30. So someone must have commented that, "Size matters". As a result, instead of the unhurried support of this Bill that I had intended to make, I shall offer an abridged version and address just three facets of the Bill.
The first is the most welcome innovation of culture online. It is absolutely right that the best of our cultural heritage in future should be available to the widest number of people, be they students young or old, professionals in the field or individuals finding new treasures. It is a bargain as it is to be given free. I hope that culture online will offer the widest possible window on all art forms and that it will be constantly updated and expanded. It will open doors previously closed to all but a privileged few.
Secondly, I commend the proposal to merge the Arts Council and the Crafts Council. In line with other government proposals to modernise organisations, this streamlining is long overdue. The existing structures have evolved and grown in separate moulds. Now is the time to combine their strengths to make the structure simpler and more accessible. Many in this House will recognise that through their experience in national and local government or voluntary organisations or through being active participants. Those who have sought support and direction from the existing bodies will find a better service available as a result of this sensible merger.

1271
Thirdly, I applaud the replacing of the Football Licensing Authority with the sports ground safety authority(SGSA). We all appreciate the immense improvements made to our football grounds following the Taylor report. Indeed, our grounds are now offered as models of safety management the world over. However, spectator sports do not stop at football. The high standards applied to that sport will now be spread across the full range of spectator sports. That area is expanding and changing rapidly in today's vibrant sporting climate.
In creating the SGSA the Bill recognises the expertise of the Football Licensing Authority with regard to local authorities. In utilising those strengths the SGSA will be able to provide a safer environment for all spectators.
One factor links all three areas that I have mentioned; namely, the anxiety of the many individuals and organisations involved as regards the need for adequate resources and funding for these much needed changes. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reassure us that the proposals are not only based on sound good sense but also on sound financial backing.
In conclusion, I hope that my much truncated support for the Bill has been adequately expressed. I should like to describe myself as sharper and thinner, but no such luck! However, the term "sharper and slimmer" is a fair assessment of a Bill that is better able to deliver the excellent objectives of the legislation and act as a vehicle for further developments in this exciting field.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, because I happen to agree with what she has said. As to culture online, I have a confession to make. I had never heard of it until I saw it in the Bill. When I read it in the Bill I was worried as I found no way of understanding what it meant. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, nods his head. The Bill would be improved if a definition of culture online were to be inserted.
Although the Bill certainly deserves a Second Reading, it will require a tremendous amount of work to polish it up in Committee and later stages. I must confess that I am not an artist or anything like that, I am just a rusty old lawyer. But all my long life I have been inspired by conventional art, music and culture since a very early age. And so, 25 years ago, I became a founder member of the All-Party Arts and Heritage Group of both Houses of Parliament. I regard that as a useful parliamentary pressure group. I am glad to say that I have in recent years been president of it. That is, I suppose, the main reason why I felt obliged to say something in this debate.
As has been pointed out, in Part I of the Bill the Government are obviously right in trying to take further steps to improve the safety of football grounds. I am no authority on this and I shall have to consult my right honourable friend John Major, who succeeded me after I had been MP for Huntingdonshire for 34 years. I confess that I hunted until I was 70, but that was a long time ago!
1272
Royal parks are owned by the Sovereign and in my opinion have been most wonderfully maintained for the benefit of all the people. Since 1851, under the Crown Lands Act of that year, they have, however, been a ministerial responsibility, which in my opinion has so far been well upheld. I think that the Government are justified in what they are providing by way of fixed penalty notices. I hope that they will be used for punishing, among other things, litter offences. Creating rubbish in the parks is the most terrible thing anyone can do.
As to Part III, which concerns historic buildings and monuments, we have all over the United Kingdom the most wonderful archaeological remains. English Heritage does great work in preserving them and enabling people to enjoy visiting them, including tourists from overseas. I am glad to say that the Bill extends those powers to underwater archaeology. That is a good proposal.
Part IV introduces the new body, culture online. As I said, the Government should clarify that matter. Part V contains a wide range of miscellaneous provisions which we shall have to consider carefully in Committee. Much reference has already been made to Clause 38 and the fifth schedule. We do not know exactly what modifications the Government will make to the fifth schedule. The Government were wise to notice—after being provoked on that point—that they could not let it stand. We must avoid Henry VIII clauses in the fifth schedule. I believe that that also applies to the second schedule. These are important matters on which Parliament must have a say. If Ministers are to be given the vast powers that they would derive from the fifth schedule as it stands, or even only a slight modification to those powers, that would be most unfortunate. Our Select Committee on Delegated Powers has yet again produced the most valuable and necessary criticism.
In conclusion, museums, galleries, monuments and ancient buildings help rising generations of our people to understand and appreciate our history, to be proud of our present and to build for the future. But although visits to museums and so on help them and are valuable, I think that in the education system we should revert to teaching history to a much greater extent than it is now taught in our schools. I know that that is nothing to do with the Bill,but it is something that the Government could put forward to the Secretary of State for Education as a way of improving our culture and our heritage.
I have said more than enough. The expertise of the large number of noble Lords who have spoken in the debate guarantees a thorough Commit tee stage, which will improve the Bill greatly.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much welcome this portfolio Bill, as the Minister described it. For although it has been described as a nip-and-tuck, sort-out-and-tidy-up, spring cleaning Bill, its role of regularising the statutory basis and powers of the Secretary of State in his relationship with DCMS bodies is important.

1273
As chair of West Midlands Life, one of the recently created regional cultural consortiums, I am particularly pleased to see English Heritage being given the last power necessary to make it the all-encompassing heritage body in the country. I welcome the fact that the Bill provides a statutory basis for grants to the Arts Council. I share the Arts Council's enthusiasm for its ability now to extend its work in arts education and IT as a result of its increased funding.
The Bill also brings about the formal establishment of culture online to which many noble Lords have referred. This will be the first website to bring together art, culture, history and science information in a coordinated, comprehensive and accessible way. By providing this exciting new resource, people not currently attracted to conventional building-centred cultural experiences will be encouraged to participate in the cultural life of the country.
The site will contain digitised moving images, sounds and stills gleaned from our museums, galleries, libraries and theatres. One will be able to tap into events and performances in one's own area and take part in interactive discussion groups and complete an online master class in a subject of one's choice. It is also envisaged that culture online will greatly benefit school pupils by supporting the national curriculum and will act as a gateway to many other related sites of interest. I, too, very much welcome the establishment of this unique resource, as have other noble Lords. This resource will be accessible to people not only in this country but all over the world through the Internet.
The vexed issue in the House today relates to appointments to boards and trusts. I simply add a plea that those appointed because of their expertise, talents and skills also reflect the population of the country in terms of gender, race and disability.
The Bill will strengthen the work of the DCMS even further not only at national level but in the regions and locally. Already we are seeing a renaissance in people's involvement in sport and culture with more agencies working together across sectors to open up access: tourism working with museums, sport working with education, performing arts working with mental health hoards and library partnerships wiring up across the region for Internet learning and access. These are exciting times to be involved in culture in its widest sense under a Government which are committed to the greatest number of people being able to enjoy the best we have to offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is an amusing and powerful speaker. However I have to take him up on his inaccurate contribution with regard to the achievements of the DCMS. I give him a few facts. Funding has doubled in sport under this Government. There has been an opening up of museums and public buildings as never before to a far wider cohort of our population. Regional theatres are enjoying a new flowering. Millions of pounds are spent every year in the regions by labour local authorities on cultural activities. In real terms the increase in the arts over five
1274
years is 60 per cent. I put it to the noble Lord that the draft manifesto, Believing in Britain, produced by the Conservatives makes no commitment to maintaining the extra —100 million of spending on the arts. I hope that that is just an oversight.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the fact that a number of issues which have been the subject of debate over a number of years have been brought together in the Bill, although we had no intimation of it in the Queen's Speech and little warning or consultation. However, it is interesting that the contributors to the debate have shown a representative knowledge of the various disparate aspects of the portfolio Bill. I have no doubt that it will leave your Lordships' House a better Bill. The briefing provided at short notice by numerous outside organisations and bodies has been most helpful and will be most useful in the later stages of the Bill.
As a matter of form, I declare an interest as a trustee of the National Museums and Galleries of Merseyside and as President of the European Foundation for Heritage Skills. My decision to participate in this Second Reading debate arose from concern over the impact of the provisions of Section 38 and Schedule 5. We now know that those provisions are to be amended. Those provisions gave rise today to more concern than any other issue. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is no longer in his place. However, his contribution said it all. I look forward to hearing the answers to his questions.
As independent statutory bodies, the national museums and galleries have a most important remit. They were established primarily to care for, preserve and add to collections of national importance that are held in trust for the nation, not just the government of the day. Increasingly, however, through the funding agreement process they are being tethered to delivering government policies almost as though they were executive agencies. For example, in the areas of access and education—I am familiar with them in the Merseyside context—we have been strongly influenced by Ministers to take up the Quids In offer, retain our low-priced NMGM Eight Pass, and allow more and more categories of free admission. On education, the funding agreement ties us to delivering a 33.3 per cent increase in educational visits by 2004 in line with the Secretary of State's own commitment under the public service agreement. That is an approach that we welcome. However, we are left to find the resources ourselves. There is no additional ring-fenced moneys as in the case of capital repairs.
The fact that the National Museums and Galleries of Merseyside, the only national museum outside London, is not listed in Schedule 5 gave me cause to wonder. However, I am happy to acknowledge that, clearly stimulated by my interest and involvement in that body, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was kind enough to write to me yesterday saying that he intends to introduce a government amendment which, if I understood him correctly, will put NMGM on the same footing as the national London museums listed

1275
in Schedule 5. I venture to assume, as others have, that the amendment will also take into account the recent agreement with the chairmen and directors of the national museums, to which the Minister referred.
It is vital that institutions such as museums and galleries should have a certain independence and uniqueness. Current or potential trustees and chairmen, who voluntarily give their time and expertise, should not see the heavy hand of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport overshadowing the deliberations and decisions that they are qualified to make. The guiding principle should be that trustees are recognised as trusted people who are prepared and competent to do their duty without interference.
The corporate governance of museums, in the light of the Nolan requirements, makes appointments of trustees difficult and much more complicated. My noble friend Lady Blatch summed that up well. I join others in warning the Minister that the amendments that he intends to table, of which he has given us notice today, will be scrutinised thoroughly. I hope that the text will be available at an early date before our Committee proceedings so that we can consider and consult on them.
I should also like to take this opportunity to contribute to the Christmas tree, by suggesting an issue that does not appear in the Bill and on which many of us involved in museum management are exercised. It is an issue that needs policy decisions at a national level and was raised in the Select Committee report on cultural property. It is the repatriation of human remains. There is a problem in Liverpool at the moment, with the New Zealand Government demanding the repatriation of the skulls of some Maori people. That would create a precedent. We need a general consensus and a ruling to resolve the dilemma. Why was that not included, when the Bill covers so many other issues? What is the Government's thinking?
I am no expert on sport, as many others are, but anything that leads to increased safety in sport is welcome. I also welcome any provisions that are likely to control the antics of cyclists in the Royal Parks. I do not know why there are not far more reported accidents as a result of cyclists going where only walkers are supposed to go and riding without lights at night time. Also, anything that can improve the litter situation, be it more bins or more frequent collections, and any attempt to enforce existing by-laws must be welcomed. At least we can be thankful that we have outlawed the vendors of hot dogs.
I remember Osborne House well from many childhood visits. I strongly support the comments of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and hope for a more secure future for Osborne House.
Funding is not covered by the Bill, but it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who seemed to think that statutory status led to adequate funding. He is gravely mistaken. Apart from the fact that our regular funding is being squeezed, the regional
1276
museums have some advantages, as they are exempt from the VAT requirements that impose such a heavy burden on the national museums.
I repeat that I await with great interest the Minister's responses to the questions that have been raised during the debate.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I am able to welcome the Bill because I am primarily concerned with Part III, which has hardly been questioned so far in the debate. However, having listened to the debate, I realise that I should have perused other parts of the Bill more carefully because they have been more controversial.
My remarks will be limited to Part III, and in particular to Clauses 19, 20, 21 and 24, which transfer to English Heritage responsibility for underwater archaeology. I should declare a non-pecuniary interest, as, nearly a quarter of a century ago, when I was in another place and serving on the culture and education committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I prepared a report on The Underwater Cultural Heritage. That started an interest in the subject, particularly the statutory protection of our underwater cultural heritage. I was pleased to see that only last November the Parliamentary Assembly adopted a further report on the same subject.
It is appropriate that underwater archaeology is dealt with in the Culture and Recreation Bill because it touches on both those subjects. It is clearly cultural because cultural objects are found as a result of underwater archaeology, but sports divers have also played a lively and usually useful role in underwater archaeology.
The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, which brings together a wide variety of bodies with an interest in the underwater cultural heritage, includes those from the archaeological side and sports divers. They have worked together for a number of years and have had consultations with the department about the Bill. They generally welcome the provisions for underwater archaeology, although, as others have said, they are concerned about the resources. I shall return to that point.
In the past, the United Kingdom has relied on the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, even though it was intended as only an interim measure. It was intended to cover sites of special historical or archaeological importance from uncontrolled interference, looting or destruction. Of the 46 designated sites around the UK, only a limited number are in England. The others are already taken care of by the three other cultural authorities. The excellent archaeological diving unit at St. Andrews University provides a service for all those sites, covering the whole of the United Kingdom. I am pleased that that will continue as a unitary service for all four bodies that will deal with the underwater heritage. It provides archaeological advice and expertise to the DCMS, and I hope that it will continue to be able to do so with English Heritage.
Although it does not come directly within the provisions of the Bill, we are not properly served by the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. Recent comparative

1277
studies have suggested that the legislative framework for the protection of wrecks, and therefore the underwater cultural heritage in the UK, is inferior to that in France, Ireland, Spain and Portugal, to give four examples. At some stage it will be necessary to revise it, although I do not think that we can do so within even the rather large Long Title of the Bill.
The Protection of Wrecks Act suffers from the fact that it was introduced in another place as a Private Member's Bill, so it makes no provision for public expenditure. It was described in a recent academic study as,
"very much a poor relation to the legislation for the protection of monuments on land".
Clause 24 goes some way to rectifying that, but archaeologists are naturally concerned about how much funding will be available and whether there will be some prospect of an increase. Like the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn and Lord Montagu, I hope that the Minister can tell us what provision is likely to be made available to English Heritage for that.
Funding for the work in relation to underwater heritage is important and, of course, people are concerned about it. Paragraph 147 of the Explanatory Notes asserts that, apart from culture online—I shall not become involved in that debate—the Bill will not entail any net additional public expenditure. The word "net" is in italics, and perhaps that suggests that some virement may occur between the different areas of expenditure covered by the Bill. Does that mean that more money could be made available for underwater archaeology?
The Bill is welcome because it will bring together the underwater cultural heritage and the other ancient monuments which are already under the care of English Heritage. Clause 52 indicates that Part III will come into effect two months after Royal Assent. However, when the Minister replies, I should be grateful if he could confirm that English Heritage will assume responsibility then, or is it merely the case that two months after Royal Assent the department will have the authority to make the transfer? And when is it envisaged that the transfer to English Heritage will take place? Those matters are not clear to those involved.
The Bill provides protection for underwater cultural heritage only up to a 12-mile limit. Indeed, that is common among most European countries which work in this field. I wish that we were at least prepared to look at a European approach to a 24-mile limit to cover underwater cultural heritage. Beyond that, it becomes an international matter.
In 1978 I was able to persuade the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to accept that national cultural protection zones should extend to a 200-mile limit, wherever that was in keeping with the geographical realities. That was probably too ambitious; certainly, it has not been accepted. However, since 1978 technical developments have
1278
occurred which increase the vulnerability of many well-preserved wrecks in international waters which previously were inaccessible.
It is worth noting the dramatic technological developments which we have seen in this field over the past 15 years. When Cousteau invented the scuba technique in 1943, he could descend only to 45 metres. As noble Lords will remember, in 1989 the "Titanic" was explored at 4,760 metres. Now, remotely-operated vehicles, mainly operated by the Americans, can descend to 6,000 metres. Therefore, 98 per cent of the deep seabed is now available for exploration and a great deal of the global cultural heritage is at risk.
Fortunately, since 1994 work has been carried out internationally on a UNESCO convention as an international instrument for protecting underwater cultural heritage. I must say that UNESCO grinds even more slowly than the DCMS in processing its legislation. I understand that there is a chance of progress in the coming year, and I hope that Ministers in the DCMS will be able to act to encourage early agreement on that—if possible, this year.
The Bill was referred to somewhat sarcastically by the Minister as a "Christmas tree".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the contrary, I expressed the hope that no one else would treat it as a Christmas tree and hang extra decorations on it.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I mistook the tone of the Minister's remarks. Others, of course, have been rather less friendly. However, one must remember that after Twelfth Night Christmas trees begin to look rather sad. After it completes its passage through the House, I hope that at least this particular Bill will look rather more like a Christmas tree on Christmas Day rather than one of those sad orphans which one sees on January 7th or 8th.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am sorry to say to the Minister that I, too, shall mention a Christmas tree, but I believe that it may be one that has no presents beneath it. There may have been an opportunity to put some presents underneath this over-decorated Christmas tree, and I believe that the opportunity could have been taken to consider some of the areas which are in much need of examination.
The whole issue of the appointments system requires careful consideration. A huge number of appointments—I am told approximately 36,000—are made to various bodies. Only one-third of those come within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I am sure that a good and logical reason exists as to how the system works and that everything is done as well as it can be.
However, I have been on both sides. I have applied for jobs and I have also interviewed several people for posts within a body which I chair. I do not believe that there is a great deal of consistency in the way that interviews are conducted. If we are to follow the Nolan

1279
Procedures, it is extremely important that we conduct interviews properly and that guidance on good practice should apply across the whole field.
One of my interviews—I shall not give the details—was conducted entirely by the board and the chairman. No independent person or anyone from a department was present. I do not believe that that would come under the title of "good practice". In an interview situation, at least one person should be independent of the body in question.
The matter of appointments is important from another point of view—that is, in relation to ethnic minorities. I once submitted a Question for Written Answer to the Minister. So far as I am able to find out, no figures exist as yet to show how matters are progressing in that area.
It is difficult for many people from ethnic minorities to take the first step towards answering an advertisement. Very often they do not have a relevant CV or they do not believe that the job is for them. In the bad old days, we used to employ people through word of mouth. Then, if they were good enough, they went on to other appointments. If they were not good enough, that was it. I do not want noble Lords to consider that I am advocating a return to that system because that would not be correct. However, I believe that procedures should be put in place to encourage people to apply for jobs and to make them feel that a job is as much open to them as it is to anyone else. To a great extent, that applies also to women and to those with disabilities. Often people do not consider that they are suitable for certain jobs.
Many high profile jobs still come under the patronage of Ministers. They are not advertised and do not receive full exposure in the public domain. Although that situation may continue to exist, I believe that it should be made clear which jobs will remain under ministerial patronage so that we all know how things stand. It is a matter of openness. This Government have always stated that they want to be transparent and open. I believe that that is extremely important as regards the appointments procedure. As we all know, Dame Rennie has found that there is still a large bias in the health service in favour of what she calls "Labour cronies". She may not have used the word "cronies" and I do not want to put words into her mouth. However, there certainly seems to be a bias in that direction.
The Minister should think about this whole area. Legislation may or may not be needed, but the area certainly needs a good review. Perhaps a provision should be added to the Bill to secure that.
I turn to the Millennium Commission, which, I know, no longer exists—it ended its life at the end of 2000. As someone who has applied for a grant from the Millennium Commission, I want to point out some of the problems that have arisen. I also stress that very little money went to ethnic minorities. I did a quick calculation and put together all the ethnic minority grants. About £15 million was given to ethnic minority projects. Ethnic minorities probably form only about 6 or 6.5 per cent of the total population. Obviously,
1280
therefore, the pool for collecting matching funds reduces hugely. We should have established at an early stage whether ethnic minorities were in a position to find matching funds of 50 per cent, which can involve a large amount of money.
The Memorial Gates Trust will provide a memorial—a long-overdue memorial—to the people from undivided India, Africa and the Caribbean who volunteered to fight for Britain in two world wars. We have gone through every imaginable scrutiny procedure at every imaginable stage. It has cost a great deal of money to satisfy the Millennium Commission at each stage. We completed a feasibility study at a stage when it was difficult to obtain details. We could have done a broad feasibility study, but we had to complete a detailed one. We also had to complete a detailed fundraising strategy and have a design competition. We had to do so many things that cost us money. We were also promised money in tranches, but we have still to receive any, although it is now three years since we applied and our grant has been confirmed.
Did the Millennium Commission apply any of those rules to the Dome? I asked that question and the simple answer is, no. At no stage were accounts asked for and at no stage did it ask for anybody to satisfy it that the project was proceeding according to plan. That is absolutely criminal. All right, money has been spent on the Dome; that is not my point. Why are there very onerous and difficult rules for small charities. but no rules for a major project? Perhaps because the project was supported by the Government. Surely, the rules that apply to every other project that the Millennium Commission funded should also have applied to the Dome.
I appreciate that the commission no longer exists, but I hope that some lessons will be learnt. because there are successors. The money is still around, and lottery money will be given to others.
I am pleased about the arts line, but should the Government be taking such action? I always feel that private enterprise does such projects better than do governments. We should consider whether another body should provide the arts line. The second point that I want to make at this stage is that if there is to be an arts line, I hope that it will include a sufficient amount of minority arts. Minority arts are not just for minorities. They have revitalised the culture and general feeling in this country—its colour—and they are in serious need of support.
I have left my last words for English Heritage. I am sorry that, once again, my experience with English Heritage has not been very edifying. I mentioned the memorial on which we have been working. Staff from English Heritage worked with us from the beginning. They knew what the design would be and everything about our project. Just before we were going to launch the design, the chairman of English Heritage told us that he would not be able to support our project. We said that it was too late for us to withdraw the design. The next day the newspapers carried a story in which the chairman said that the design was a world-class

1281
joke. In the whole of my time in this country, I have never known a chairman of a public body behave like that towards a charity.
English Heritage decided that we should have no gates at all. That was the position from which we started. It wanted to refurbish Wellington Arch, which it did not want to be obscured by our gate. We now have a new design, which cost us money and an additional six months, but everybody is happy. However, English Heritage could have told us more. We like the design; we do not complain about that. However, we complain about the fact that English Heritage did not see fit to inform us in good time. That is a gross misuse of its powers. When its remit is extended, I hope that its structures will be examined, so that it does not behave in that high-handed manner to other organisations.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, this is a wide-ranging Bill that covers many aspects of life as seen through the eyes of the DCMS. I am tempted by Parts II to VI, but today I shall speak only about Part I, which will reconstitute the Football Licensing Authority as the sports ground safety authority.
In my previous life, before I joined your Lordships' House, I spent nearly 25 years involved in the areas of activity that relate directly to this part of the Bill. For 19 of those years, I had the great good fortune and pleasure of working with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in the Football Trust, latterly as his deputy chairman.
The trust came into being as a response to a series of tragic events at football matches in the 1970s and 1980s, which in turn led to the passage of various pieces of legislation through Parliament, and from which this Bill is a direct descendent.
The first of those tragedies occurred 30 years ago, almost to the day, when 66 football fans lost their lives at the new year fixture between Rangers and Celtic on 2nd January 1971. The Ibrox disaster was the subject of an inquiry by Lord Justice Wheatley and led to the passage of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. That provided for a system of safety certification by local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland at grounds where designated football matches were played.
There were three further awful tragedies in the 1980s: two in this country and one abroad. The first was the fire at Bradford City on the last day of the season in 1985, which killed 56 people. That led to the passage of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987, which extended safety certification to stands accommodating 500 or more people at grounds that were not designated under the 1975 Act.
The next disaster took place at the Heysel Stadium in Brussels at the European cup final in May 1985, when 39 Juventus fans were killed after incidents of crowd disorder, largely involving Liverpool fans. That was followed by, and coincided with, one of the worst periods of football violence in the domestic game, and
1282
led to the introduction of the Football Spectators Bill, which I suppose marked the lowest point in the relationship between the then government, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and the football authorities. Indeed, I recall one memorable occasion when the then secretary of the Football Association was unwise enough to suggest to the noble Baroness that she should get her hooligans out of his game.
The principal measure in the Football Spectators Bill was a new system of licensing, which involved the introduction of a compulsory membership card system for all fans attending designated matches. That was seen by Ministers as the only way in which crowd disorder could be tackled, as they hoped that it would drive hooligans away from the game altogether. A new body would be created and given the responsibility of overseeing the introduction of the membership scheme and for issuing licences to clubs—the Football Licensing Authority. The licences would be in addition to the safety certificates issued by local authorities under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.
The membership scheme would almost certainly have come about in the teeth of fierce opposition from the game itself had it not been for the third disaster of the 1980s, that of Hillsborough on 15th April 1989—a day which those of us who were there (I was) and saw the bodies of the 96 victims laid out on the pitch will never forget.
That tragedy was investigated by Lord Justice Taylor, as he then was. He issued an interim report on the causes and concluded that, had the membership scheme been in place, the scale of the disaster would have been compounded. Very sensibly, Ministers dropped their plans for that scheme and the powers contained in the Football Spectators Act to insist on it have never been used. Instead, they charged the Football Licensing Authority with responsibility for overseeing, again by way of a licence, the main recommendations in Taylor's final report, which included a requirement that standing accommodation be replaced by seating at all grounds of clubs in the Football League. That was modified later to exclude clubs in the two lower divisions, which had to ensure that their standing accommodation complied with the most stringent safety standards.
Section 11 of the Football Spectators Act gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the FLA to include in its licence, granted under Section 10, a requirement that at designated matches grounds should admit spectators to seated accommodation only. A 10-year timescale was applied for the whole Taylor report recommendations to be implemented, and extra funding was given to the Football Trust through a reduction in pool betting duty to help pay for it.
The consequence has been that virtually all league grounds in Great Britain have been improved out of all recognition, as my noble friend Lady Billingham said in her speech earlier. The Football Licensing Authority has played an important part in driving up those standards which in turn have led to the general improvement in football crowd behaviour inside

1283
grounds at domestic games. That is why I am sure it is now safe to remove the licensing regime and to rely on the local authority certification structure with the new body taking an overseeing role.
The behaviour of English fans abroad is a different matter and will, I suspect, be the subject of a separate debate when the Home Office working party, chaired by my noble friend Lord Bassam—and on which I serve—reports later in the spring.
There has also been a general, but not so dramatic, improvement in spectator facilities in sports other than professional football. Some of that has been due to the general raising of standards which has taken place in other parts of the entertainment industry or as a consequence of tighter fire and other safety regulations. Those other non-football sports have tried hard not to have what they see as unreasonable football-type burdens imposed on them for, as they rightly point out, they do not, in the main, suffer from the same problems of crowd violence as football. But they must not be complacent. Crowd trouble can occur almost anywhere, especially in situations where lots of alcohol is available.
Would those sports benefit from the services of a body such as the Football Licensing Authority? The Government clearly decided that they would, but do not want to impose unnecessary new licensing burdens on those sports. So the reconstitution of the FLA as the Sports Ground Safety Authority with a remit to help with guidance on good practice seems to me an entirely sensible step. Whether the SGSA should have a statutory responsibility for overseeing the safety certification regime of local authorities as it applies to other sports, is perhaps something we could consider in Committee.
It is essential that the FLA and, in its new guise, the SGSA retain an interventionist role with league football, overseeing the certification system but no longer issuing licences. Lord Justice Taylor rightly drew attention to how short-lived the impact of earlier disaster reports had been and how tragedy can all too easily follow complacency.
In conclusion, I shall mention two other issues briefly. I shall not involve myself—though I am tempted—in the standing versus sitting controversy and the interesting comments of the Minister for Sport on that issue, and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, in his remarkable maiden speech earlier this afternoon. I suspect we will return to that subject later.
First, I am concerned about whether the definition of a sports ground needs to be changed, as that contained in Section 17(1) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act does not appear to cover indoor arenas. As a consequence, local authorities cannot use that Act to certify them and it seems that under this Bill the SGSA will not be able to provide an input to them. Can my noble friend say whether or not that is so and whether he will consider amending the Bill in Committee to cover indoor arenas to which large numbers of people go to watch events such as ice hockey, basketball and swimming?
1284
Secondly, there seems to be some confusion about the safety regime which will cover temporary stands. Again, perhaps my noble friend will look at the definition of a stand contained in Section 26(11) o f the Act. Perhaps we should add something which better defines a temporary stand, and no doubt we can do that in Committee.
Apart from those points, which I am sure can be easily resolved, I am happy to support the principles underlying Part I of the Bill and wish the Government well with it.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, as number 22 in the batting order I wondered whether I would have anything new to say this afternoon. But I should like to cover three topics which perhaps say something about the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill with which we will have to grapple as it progresses through your Lordships' House. I see this as a rag-bag of a Bill rather than as the Minister saw it—as a portfolio Bill.
There is no doubt that the tax reliefs available for British films are crucial to the viability of our film industry. Without those tax reliefs the film industry would find it extremely difficult to obtain finance. The procedure involves the completion of a 20-page form, complete with an accountant's report and a statutory declaration by the applicant. That is submitted to the DCMS, which certifies the film and triggers the essential eligibility for 100 per cent tax relief.
I can understand why DCMS officials want to use this Bill to get rid of the certification process, though I believe it is not particularly onerous. I understand also why the Explanatory Notes tell us that the Government consider the Film Council to be the right body to do the job. What I find difficult to understand is why the Government are reluctant to come out and say firmly in the Bill that the Film Council will definitely be designated. That would give certainty to the film industry and, importantly, to the financiers.
This may not appear to be an important issue, but let me say how I arrived at it. I asked a former colleague of mine, who is an expert on film finance and film tax, to look at the Bill. I omitted to give him the Explanatory Notes. His immediate reaction was that the Bill was creating a power for the DCMS to transfer the certification responsibility to the Inland Reven ue. It might be asked why that is a problem. It would make the Inland Revenue both judge and jury of whether a film is eligible for the tax reliefs which are crucial to the film industry in this country.
As a former non-executive member of the Inland Revenue's Management Board, I have the highest regard for the Inland Revenue and wish nothing that I say to be taken as a slur on that organisation. But there is a crucial difference between a body which facilitates and supports an industry, like the Film Council, and a body which administers and collects the Government's taxes, like the Inland Revenue.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, why is it that the Film Council is not specifically mentioned in the schedule to the Bill? Secondly, in what

1285
circumstances would a body other than the Film Council be designated under that schedule? Can the Minister state categorically that the Inland Revenue would not be an appointee under Schedule 4?
Like several other noble Lords who have spoken, my second area of concern is culture online. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I have almost no idea what it is meant to be. I have heard several Lords say what they would like it to be but I still have no clear idea of what it is about or, indeed, why it needs a new government body to carry it out.
Paragraph 148 of the Explanatory Notes states that significant—it is unquantified—public investment will be involved. However, it goes on to state that that will be subject to a full business case. I believe that your Lordships' House should have a business case as the case for culture online. What evidence is there of a demand for whatever it is that culture online is intended to do? What resources, at least in ball-park terms, will we be invited, in effect, to approve in setting up that body? What alternative courses of action to achieve the aims of culture online have been considered, and, if rejected, why so rejected?
The powers being set up for that body are considerable: to acquire assets, to set up companies, to borrow and to charge its assets. We are told that somehow that is to be controlled by a financial memorandum between the Secretary of State and the new body. There is not even a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay the financial memorandum before Parliament. There is not even a borrowing limit set for culture online in the Bill.
I have an uncomfortable feeling of déjà vu. As my noble friend Lord Baker stated, the Dome comes to mind. That was another grand idea with relatively few constraints other than the ad hoc judgments of Ministers. It will be hard for your Lordships to approve the provisions to create culture online without very much better information about the plans for it, why it is needed and the controls which will be in place to oversee its existence.
My third area of concern is accountability, which is a rather dry area in a Bill full of exciting and interesting topics relating to culture and recreation. I shall start with the three companies set out in Clause 33 which can by order be converted into statutory corporations. I have no problem with their being so converted because I believe that in most instances the use of a statutory corporation rather than a Companies Act company aids the accountability of such bodies when they are set up to carry out purposes on behalf of the Government.
Schedule 3 sets out the items which the Secretary of State may—not must—include in one of those orders. At paragraph 10, that includes the provision of reports to the Secretary of State. My concern is that those bodies should be accountable to Parliament and that their reports should be available to both Houses. The usual formulation is for an annual report to be submitted to the Secretary of State and, in turn, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay those reports before both Houses of Parliament.
1286
An example of that appears in the Bill. Schedule 2, in relation to culture online, has just such a provision. However, we do not find that for the three bodies that are covered by Clause 33. Indeed, I could not find a single reference in Part I or Schedule 1 to that being dealt with by the new safety authority, either to produce a report to the Secretary of State or for a report to be laid before the Houses of Parliament. I believe that the Bill should make it clear that all such bodies should make annual reports both to the Secretary of State and to both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Government will look again at those parts of the Bill to ensure that accountability is dealt with clearly, unambiguously and, I hesitate to suggest, consistently between the various bodies in the Bill.
My final point also relates to the new safety authority and, more particularly, to the audit arrangements. There are basically two models of audit for public corporations, quangos. Either the audit is carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General or by commercial auditors, with inspection rights for the Comptroller and Auditor General. Most of the Bill follows the first option but for the safety authority it follows the second. I do not want to pursue the differences between the two options here. If I did I should have to declare several sorts of interest to your Lordships' House. I am keen to ensure that a high quality audit is prescribed by the Bill.
Under paragraph 26 of Schedule 1 the auditor to be appointed must be qualified to do Companies Act audits—I paraphrase—or (the word "or" is important) be a member of a body of accountants in the UK or elsewhere in the EC. As drafted, I could be appointed as the auditor to the safety authority, notwithstanding that I am not personally able to be appointed as a Companies Act auditor. That might not be so bad because I have done the odd audit in the past and, indeed, for many years was a partner in a firm which was authorised to carry out audits. But a very large number of people qualify as accountants in this country who have no audit knowledge or experience and who under the terms of the Bill as I read it, would be eligible for appointment. Indeed, if we look to the EC there are large numbers of bodies of accountants which are quite unlike the bodies of accountants to be found in this country, certainly in relation to their ability to carry out audits.
I hope that the Government will look again at the clause to ensure that it achieves what I hope is their aim; that is, the highest quality of audit coverage to ensure that the accountability of this body is reinforced. I look forward to seeing the Bill go through its Committee stage. I am sure that there are many aspects at which we need to look in detail.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the Bill, which tidies up in many areas and will soon give legitimacy to the body I chair, the Council for Museums, Libraries and Archives.

1287
Perhaps I may say a few words about the controversy surrounding the appointment of museum chairs and trustees. That has been widely written about in the newspapers and was the subject of a positive meeting on Monday between the Secretary of State, the Minister and the museum chairs. As your Lordships will know, the meeting resulted in a large number of changes to the Bill.
There is a matter of principle that should be firmly put on the record; that is, if an organisation receives large sums of taxpayers' money, the Minister—any Minister—has the right and duty to have some influence over senior board appointments to that organisation. But there should be no dispute about the museum's ultimate power and right to make trustee appointments. I believe that it is a question of co-operation, consultation and harmony. What is important is the process used to exert that legitimate influence as the appointments are made. Here, I wish to draw attention to the way in which this Government have embraced Nolan principles and good practice in making appointments to public bodies.
Perhaps I may give an example from my own experience. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, I have been both an interviewee and an interviewer. A number of years ago I received a letter from somebody who was briefly Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage, as it then was, under a previous administration. He asked me if I wished to be chairman of the Library and Information Commission. I had a 20 minute talk with him in his office. I asked him four questions, two of which he could not answer, and the following day I received a letter from him offering me the job.
Compare and contrast that with the selection process for my present job as chair of resource. I answered an advertisement in the newspaper. I was sent a five-page form to complete which asked me, among other things, about my political activity. I attended an interview with a panel comprising two independent assessors and with the permanent secretary in the chair. Obviously, I got the job.
Furthermore, I was a member of the selection panel for the chair of one of our large museums. The post was advertised and 14 candidates were shortlisted. We interviewed them over two days. Again, the permanent secretary chaired the selection panel which comprised three independent assessors, the head of an Oxford college, a distinguished, now retired, civil servant from the Cabinet Office and myself. We chose the person we thought was the best candidate and the Secretary of State made the appointment. Last week, one newspaper described the appointment as "political". That is utter nonsense!
It is to be hoped that in future all appointments will be handled in the way I have described—many of the issues about which we have been worried today will then disappear—and that we shall never see a return to the pre-1997 method of parachuting people into major positions.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, spoke of the crisis in regional museums. It may be helpful to him and other noble Lords to know that the Secretary of State
1288
has asked me to chair a group to report on the situation in regional museums. The group, with a wide-ranging brief, will include senior figures from regional museums as well as Sir Nicholas Serot a from the Tate and Neil MacGregor from the National Gallery. It will report by the end of June and, among many other issues, we will examine that of statutory responsibility, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Before sitting down, perhaps I may address a few words to my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. I am afraid that his fine political judgment has been seriously damaged by the fact that he, too, has become a "luvvie". He is now an author, not a political figure, and at this time of night I have no intention of spending your Lordships' time refuting all the allegations he made about the Government's arts policy. I shall leave that to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. However, I plan to take the noble Lord to his club—which these days is almost certain to be the Groucho Club—buy him a couple of beers and put him right.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill and I do not intend to add any decorations to my noble friend's Christmas tree. I shall spend a few minutes discussing Parts II and V. I welcome the proposed changes in respect of the Royal Parks, which are places for quiet enjoyment. They leave one free, it is hoped, from the risk of being run over by cars, cycles or whatever and one can partake in appropriate sports, games and other activities.
Although there are still too many roads for cars, some parks have improved. I am pleased to see that the Government have got rid of the "deathburger" sellers outside Buckingham Palace. That is a major environmental improvement. I also welcome the fixed penalty notice for dropping litter, animal fouling and cycling on footpaths. However, I wonder whether anything else can be added to the list. I believe, for instance, that it is illegal to take a photograph in the park if one's camera is on a tripod; one must then obtain a licence. Perhaps the deregulation unit might like to examine that.
I am a regular user of the parks, cycling with lights. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, that cyclists should stay in cycle lanes, but it is nice to have a few lights in the lanes so that one can not only see "n the dark but be seen, if only by those who are cycling without lights. It would also be nice if the gates were not locked before midnight. After leaving your Lordships' House I try to get to Paddington Station and it is not always easy.
The worst aspect of the parks is the animal fouling. Horses use cycle tracks but no one clears up the mess afterwards. This morning in the park I saw a troop of horses being followed by a mechanical sweeper. I t was on the road and so were the horses but the cycle track s are never cleaned. I assure your Lordships that horse droppings mixed with rain is a nasty mess which does no one's shoes and trousers any good.

1289
I question whether the regulations mean that the services and the police forces will receive fixed penalties of they make messes on the footpaths and the roads. How will they be stopped from doing so? Will the parks be cleaned up more or less?
I hope that enforcement of the regulations is done with fairness and discretion and in an appropriate manner. Could not the police occasionally use cycles or foot patrols? I have seen a park patrol driving in a smelly police van down a footpath chasing a cyclist who was cycling on it. A cyclist is dangerous on a footpath but not half as dangerous as a smelly police van. I suggest that the patrols stick to the roads but if they want to chase people on the footpaths they should do so on foot or on cycles. Finally, I welcome the regulations and hope that the fixed penalty for those offences will be retained and used for improving the facilities in the parks.
I had intended to speak at length about Schedule 5 because for a number of years I have been involved with the Science Museum and the Railway Museum. I have a high regard for their scholarship, management and the accessibility of their displays. The experience of their boards' members, some of whom have spoken tonight, is legendary. Therefore, I read Schedule 5 with dismay and thought that it was a good Henry VIII clause—more government meddling for no particular benefit. But since reading it and hearing my noble friend's explanation and the interesting comments from my noble friend Lord Evans, I have confidence that things will be taken forward in the correct manner. I shall read with great interest the Government's amendments and the report of today's proceedings.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, other noble Lords have declared an interest but I have none to declare, apart from being a user and lover of our London parks. They are what I shall talk about. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I could have a long debate on the subject but the terms of the Bill and the time of night do not permit it.
As the Minister said, the Bill enables the Royal Parks Police to issue fixed-penalty notices to a person who has committed an offence as defined in Part III of the Royal Parks and other Open Spaces Regulations 1997. This is a measure the RPC and the agency have been wanting for some time.
Until last year there had been no real procedure to deal with this. A police constable in one of the Royal Parks would warn the offender that he was committing an offence but until last year such a warning was never recorded centrally—except perhaps in the PC's notebook or in a file.
It was only last year that all such effective warnings were kept centrally, thereby enabling the officer in charge to see how many warnings an individual had received. On a first offence the force would send a letter of warning to that person. The courts and the Crown Prosecution Service have not been receptive to
1290
first time offenders who usually get off with a caution. It is only when a second or third offence has been committed that a summons signed by the court is issued, with a date for the offender to appear in court. That could take up to six months, if not more. The CPS would deal with the case if it was heard at Bow Street court. However, if the case was heard at Marylebone magistrates' court, an officer of the RPC would have to deal with it. All this costs time and money.
When this part of the Bill becomes an Act an officer will have power, after a warning, to issue a fixed penalty notice there and then, saving time and money. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, we hope that that will be done fairly. I am a little concerned as to whether a person who is riding a bicycle and dropping litter is able to be identified.
This is all well and good but to do it you need manpower. Here the RPC has a problem. In a review in 1996 Commander Sally Hubbard recommended that there should be 143 PCs with four part-timers in the summer months and the recommended equivalent number of sergeants and inspectors. The latter level has been maintained but not the number of PCs. When I visited the RPC in September to see how it would cope with the Royal Parks Trading Act, which came into operation in November—your Lordships will be glad to hear that it has been a total success—there were 117 PCs. As of 12th January of this year there were only 107, with more likely to leave the force.
Taking into account shift work, holidays and sick leave, out of a total of 107 the manpower available at any one time would be less than 50 PCs to oversee all the royal parks. In the summer there is the daily changing of the guard which occurs every other day in the winter. That is a considerable drain on manpower. That is in addition to all the other duties that they must perform, such as putting up warning signs if there is ice on the lakes, as has happened recently, and other duties.
The reason for the exodus is the level of pay. A PC in the RPC gets 15 to 20 per cent less than an equivalent officer in the Metropolitan Police or even the Transport Police. I am told that the latter gives officers free travel. All these officers have been trained to the same standard yet receive different pay. I think of another problem of which we are all aware. Most, if not all, have to live outside London and travel to work, which costs them money. Therefore, they leave the RPC and join their local forces. Not only PCs but other ranks are paid less. I know of one inspector who receives£10,000 less than an officer of the same rank in the Metropolitan Police. All this leads to low morale.
Since November, if not before, a review has been taking place involving the parks agency and the DCMS. That is causing low morale in the force. It was told that an announcement was due before Christmas but still no agreement has been reached. Unless an agreement can be reached soon I fear that police numbers will continue to decline. We must stop this haemorrhageing very soon.
The royal parks need a dedicated police force to protect the fabric of the parks and ensure that the public can enjoy themselves knowing that they are

1291
safe. I fear that if the RPC merged with the Metropolitan Police officers would be moved to cover other duties, allowing crime of all types to increase. Currently, the parks are clean and fairly free of reported or recorded crime. Sadly, there is crime, such as cycling which is not reported or recorded due to lack of staff.
Part II of the Bill does not specify to which offences fixed penalties will apply. I know that they are listed in paragraph 57 of the Explanatory Notes, but should they not be included on the face of the Bill? Paragraph 57 makes no mention of roller skates, roller blades and so on, as defined in Regulation 3(4)(b) of the Royal Parks and other Open Spaces Regulations 1997. Those can be just as dangerous as bicycles. Likewise, I see no reference to loud radios or other musical items. Perhaps they are covered elsewhere.
In conclusion, I should like to ask: who is to pocket the money when the fines are paid? No mention is made of this in the Bill. I strongly believe that the money should go to the police force to offset its costs. Failing that, the money should go to the agency, not the Treasury. I urge the Government to finalise the review submitted by the Royal Parks Agency which I hope will give peace of mind to the police and put a stop to the haemorrhageing of its manpower.
7.26 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, this is not an easy debate in which to make a Second Reading speech because I cannot identify any underlying philosophy or theme. I accept the Minister's description of this measure as a "portfolio Bill"; others have described it in less complimentary terms. The House will forgive me if I leave out a number of areas in respect of which excellent speeches have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, dealt with archaeology and my noble friends Lord Redesdale and Lord Roper dealt with underwater archaeology. The changes in the name of the body concerned with tourism and English Heritage are fairly innocuous and reasonable.
I should like to address one or two points of interest to me where perhaps some amplification may be provided by the Minister in his summing up. The Minister spoke earlier about the parks. We had an amusing speech by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which conjured up visions of the Keystone Cops, with police chasing other police in the parks and people with wheelbarrows or whatever. I shall read the noble Lord's speech.
All noble Lords who have spoken are great admirers of the parks and much value the ability to go into a beautifully kept area where there is comparative calm. If people riding bicycles without lights, which is viewed as a serious crime, are to be stopped and measures taken to make it impossible for traders in evil-smelling sausages to ply their wares illegally, that is to the good. As to photography, I should have thought that it depended on what was being photographed with a tripod.
However, if powers are to be given either to the RPC or the Metropolitan Police—one hopes that they will not merge—it should not lead to a situation where the
1292
law is not enforced because it is viewed as difficult to do so or it is enforced like some of the parking legislation; namely, it is more a question of raising revenue than dealing with the problems themselves. I hope that a sensible result will ensue.
As a cyclist in London, one matter that strikes me is the large number of people who ride bicycles without lights, particularly outside your Lordships' House. From time to time perhaps one might expect people to ride bicycles without lights in the parks. I would rather meet a cyclist without lights in a park than outside your Lordships' House where before long someone will be killed. It will be interesting to see how the matter develops. By and large, these provisions are sensible.
I very much enjoyed the ebullient and attractive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in a number of respects. Not being a professional politician, I do not endeavour to make a swingeing criticism of the Government's proposed legislation. However, the noble Lord made some interesting points which touched on his particular expertise in culture online. I take his point. I share his view that there is a great deal in the collection of the museums which is below stairs and not available to be seen. It will be an enormous advance to give people the opportunity of knowing what is there. I look forward to that happening.
I am not clever with new technology, although all members of my family, of all ages, appear to be. Therefore, I am able to sit back and be provided with endless printouts about anything that I mention at any time of day or night. That is extremely useful. But I have become lazy about it myself. II agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that, if one wants to look at old bones, it is better to look at real old bones than old bones in a picture on the Internet. The same applies to anything else. My wife describes the joys of using the Internet as much like that of being addicted to encyclopaedias; one opens these books and starts to look things up at random and it becomes a kind of obsession. I should not like to think that those going down the cultural road would stop at the Internet. I hope that it encourages people to go beyond the images they see on their screens and into libraries and galleries.
I move on to another area of particular interest to me dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, which is film. I shall not criticise the Government on their actions over film. We know that not all of them have been successful. Most people do not realise that it is extremely difficult to get a successful film; that is, a film which a great many people pay money to see. It has always been a problem in this country.
I make this next remark diffidently. I notice that the noble Lord, Puttnam, is in his place, so I shall be careful what I say. The Government in their keenness to do something about film and with the arrival of lottery funds, sought to create a fair disbursement which would not be seen as embarrassing to film producers, who could not do it themselves. They put the Arts Council in charge. That was not a successful exercise. One could have foreseen that from the start.

1293
But who else was there to do the job? It is an irony that just as the functions of the Arts Council were taken over by the new Film Council it had its one success—just under —1 million was put into a film called Billy Elliott. It would appear that it had just got the hang of the business when everything was taken from it and given to the film consortium, the Film Council. But that is the way of the world.
It has to be said that the Government have tried. The Film Council is the right body to carry on the functions which have now been passed over to it. The defining of British films is a complicated business. We have discussed this matter in the House before. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the point that the reason for transferring the functions to the Film Council is that it is perceived as having the expertise to do things quickly. One of the problems in trying to get packages together which result in films being made is producing them as quickly as one possibly can. Obviously the Film Council is better qualified to do that than the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The same applies to keeping the registers and so on.
I do not share noble Lords' criticisms of the Government. They have done their best. That seems faint praise indeed. Little was done before the Government came into power. We were always badgering the Conservative administration to do more for film. Another difficulty about film is that in this country it is viewed as entertainment. It is not viewed as culture. Entertainment films are expensive to make. Therefore, we tend to try to make cultural films. Cultural films have done very well on television and the big screen. The film industry has been kept alive over the lean years by the BBC and Channel 4 who created interesting hybrid films which can be seen on television and big screens. We cannot compete with the United States because of economies of scale and their expertise. We are a niche industry. The Government have the matter about right with the Film Council.
However, I was dismayed—I was surprised that this was not mentioned—to see that two film consortia have been the subject of takeovers. That matter was kept quiet by the press. They were given public moneys but were taken over by other operations. One was Pathé, which is a French company; the other was a company which is based on butchery, if I remember correctly. The other one has not yet produced a film. It is run by that well-known producer, Mr Duncan Kenworthy, who was responsible for Four Weddings and a Funeral. We look forward to seeing what comes out of that company.
I should like to ask the Minister a question on museums. It concerns a matter that has worried us all and is perhaps the aspect of the Bill which has received the most attention. It seems that the Government, for whatever reason, are seeking to have more control. We have heard a good deal about shooting foxes. In his remarks he said that the Government would be introducing amendments which would make their proposals clearer. It does not appear that there has been any change from the discussions which took
1294
place. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, intimated that there had been some successful talks on the subject. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on that matter.
There is nothing in the Bill which tells us about the cultural state of the nation. Nor should there be. That is not its purpose. There is splendid provision, plenty of innovation and plenty of talent in the country for the arts. There are wonderful museums and galleries, some more wonderful than others. The Government rightly are taking this issue forward with energy and enthusiasm in seeking to improve this promising situation. Therefore, one has the necessary provision. But there is a large section of the British public who do not take advantage of it. That is against a background of appalling child poverty, depravation in urban areas and exclusion, particularly of ethnic minorities who see culture and the arts as the domain of the educated and successful and steer away from it if they possibly can. That is not a situation which pertains in many other countries in Europe. I hope that the Government will address that matter. So many young people born in deprived circumstances do not easily see the arts and culture as a way of giving them new perspectives and quality to their lives. It is the job of government, together with other departments of state, the voluntary agencies and local government, to see that the situation is improved.
I commend the Government for creating so much which is available. But it is rather like going into the National Gallery, which I have several times over the past few weeks. One hardly ever hears English spoken there. Visitors love it. Foreign visitors go there in droves. I should like to have from the Government—the Minister shakes his head. He is frowning. I have been there many times and can assure him that that is so. Many visitors are Japanese. They walk in large crocodile formation between me and the pictures which is rather irritating. Our museums and galleries in the centre of London are an enormous attraction to visitors. However, one wonders whether more of our own people could be encouraged to visit them, especially as we hope that they will be free. I hope that this ridiculous —1 fee will be sorted out. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. We have ranged from old bones to IT, from Royal Parks to Queen Victoria, and the Bill has been described as a rag-bag, a hotchpotch, an omnium gatherum, a portfolio and to an extent, as my noble friend Lady Anelay said, a Pandora's box; but then so is the department and so also, inevitably, my speech. I apologise in advance to noble Lords if that is the case.
There are good things in the Bill and there are others about which people have had doubts, as many noble Lords have made clear. I think that this debate has been an example of the House of Lords at its best. Experts from many fields have spoken with relish on their individual subjects, and the Government would do well to listen most carefully.

1295
I must first mention the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. I have known him on and off for very many years and it is no surprise to me that his speech was so good. We look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
In a typically robust and eloquent speech my noble friend Lord Baker queried the need for culture online. I am one of those ignoramuses who is not at all good on such matters. We will be exploring this proposal in Committee. My noble friend Lord Renfrew was worried about VAT on historic buildings and the statutory basis for regional museums. He was disappointed—I hope that the Government will take due note of his point—that the proposals in the Green Paper, Protecting Our Heritage, hardly figure in the Bill. He was disappointed by the Government's lack of vision. I think that all noble Lords on this side of the House would agree with that. It is a rather boring Bill.
My noble friend Lady Trumpington queried among other things the boundaries of underwater archaeology. My noble friend Lady Blatch queried the need to reorganise museum trusteeships and criticised the time now taken to appoint trustees. She also referred to a problem with regard to a home for ex-service personnel with Alzheimer's Disease and the difficulty of raising money. She said that, having raised a considerable amount of money and fulfilled the criteria set by the lottery fund distributors, the fundraisers found that the offer of lottery money was suddenly withdrawn. The same thing happened in Bedfordshire to a rowing group. It fulfilled all the criteria of finding land, getting the approval of local authorities and the Amateur Rowing Association, and so on. It was told that everything it had done was right but then the plug was suddenly pulled. I shall perhaps come back to that matter at a later date, but it is extraordinary that what I have just outlined mirrors exactly the experience of my noble friend Lady Blatch.
My noble friend Lady Noakes made a most interesting speech on the taxation aspects of the film industry. I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Renton say that he wants more teaching of history in our schools. Some noble Lords may remember that around six months ago I initiated a short debate on precisely that subject. My noble friend Lady Hooper referred to national museums situated outside London and in particular to those on Merseyside. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has taken that point on board. My noble friend Lady Flather wanted more openness in appointment procedures and my noble friend Lord Brougham made a most interesting speech about Royal Parks and said how important it is that appropriate manpower is available to enforce the new regulations and arrangements.
Many noble Lords referred to the setting up of the Film Council on 3rd May last year and to the fact that it is now responsible for all public funding of film. There was reference to the rather unfortunate experience over the past three years of funding organised by the Arts Council. Let us hope that the Film Council's promise to take a more commercially minded approach to investing in British film is borne out by results. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland,
1296
suggested that we cannot compete with American films. I do not altogether understand that. I am sure noble Lords are aware that a great number of successful American films are made in Britain because of the technical expertise that is available over here. If the Film Council is successful in its endeavours—we all hope that it will be—is it the Government's eventual intention to float it as a private company? With regard to the register of films, the Film Council says that the register is an archive of only those films made up until 1985 and therefore it does not matter that it is being abolished. Should not an up-to-date register at least of British films be kept? It seems to be a little draconian to abolish the register altogether.
English Heritage hopes to trade under the new arrangements and exploit its tangible and intangible assets both in England and abroad. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, was concerned about the drafting of the Bill. He thought that it might be possible for English Heritage to exploit privately owned intellectual property rights. No doubt the Minister will answer that question.
It is stated that English Heritage will be encouraged to consult with equivalent heritage bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is it the Government's intention to persuade Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to enact similar legislation; and if not, why not? It is essential that any profits made by English Heritage from this trading should be seen as an extra income to English Heritage and not as a convenient way of replacing grants. My noble friend Lord Montagu made that point.
The ability to trade abroad—in particular, selling its expertise to countries where there is no expertise—will be welcomed by English Heritage. But does English Heritage mean to say, as it seems to say in its brief to me, that it has no intention of competing with the private sector? Surely, to trade profitably—we wish it to trade profitably—it must be in the appropriate market. Even if it finds a new market, the private sector will rapidly move in and compete.
The part of the Bill dealing with statues seems to be a measure designed to give the Mayor of London the green light to erect "red" statues. If noble Lords think that I am joking, I suggest that they read reports of the mayor's comments on the statues in Trafalgar Square and his plans. Planning authorities may be able to draw the line, but surely there is a strong case in this instance for retaining the Secretary of State's right'; to supervise new statues, particularly in London. We on these Benches do not like this part of the Bill. Unless the Government produce really compelling reasons to retain it, we shall endeavour to remove Clause 42. My noble friend Lady Trumpington expressed her views on the matter most effectively.
The provisions on Osborne are for me the most interesting part of the Bill. I first visited Osborne House, which is sometimes described as Queen Victoria's seaside villa, in 1953, soon after the private apartments had been opened by direction of the Queen, having not been touched except for dusting—I believe that this is right—since 1901. I listened with

1297
great interest to what my noble friends Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Lady Trumpington had to say on the subject.
Recently we have seen articles, television programmes, the re-showing of the "Mrs Brown" film (although that is hardly history) and a general reawakening of public interest in the life and times of one of our most revered and successful monarchs, who, as my noble friend Lord Montagu reminded noble Lords, died exactly 100 years ago next Monday. So what do our Government do to mark the occasion? They have illegally shut down part of Osborne House, which since 1904 has been a convalescent home helping to restore to health thousands of military and Civil Service personnel. Have the Government no shame? Is it not somewhat contemptible to ignore the wish of King Edward to provide, as described in the Osborne Estate Act 1902, as a memorial to the late Queen Victoria, for part of Osborne House to be used for the benefit of His Majesty's,
"naval and military forces, their wives, widows or family".
Later this was enlarged to provide similar care for Air Force and Civil Service convalescents.
If the Government will not pay any attention to history, are they aware that, last winter, the Osborne House convalescent home provided invaluable backup to the sorely tried NHS hospitals in the area? Where will that back-up come from this winter, in particular if there is an epidemic of 'flu? Surely there should be increased provision for convalescent patients rather than less. The Government make great play of their desire to do all they can to relieve the burdens on the NHS. Is not this action rather strange in those circumstances?
I have said already that I am most grateful to English Heritage for its briefing material, which includes its intentions for that part of Osborne House which is given over to the convalescent home. I have to say that the plans appear imprecise, especially as I understand that English Heritage was asked for its suggestions some months ago. I hope that we shall learn much more about those plans later. I should say that I was personally impressed with the idea put forward by my noble friend Lord Montagu; namely, that part of the premises could be used as a workshop for the Victorian Society. I am sure that other bodies could also be provided for.
As always, I look forward to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to the debate, as well as to our debates in Committee when we shall probe deeper into some of these matters.
7.53 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this wide-ranging debate. I do not apologise any more than any other noble Lord for the fact that we have covered a wide range of subjects. I have a special page attached to the back of my briefing entitled "Omissions" which addresses the attempts of noble Lords to turn the Bill into a Christmas tree by adding new provisions to it.
1298
However, I think it would be best if, as far as possible, I restrict myself to the provisions of the Bill and continue to discourage noble Lords from seeking to add items which would require amendments to the Long Title of the Bill. Perhaps I may address the Bill in the same order that I used in opening and, indeed, in the same order in which the Bill is written.
I shall start with sports grounds. I think that I detected general support for these provisions in the Bill. Noble Lords appeared to support the notion that, although the work of the Football Licensing Authority in the past was very much to be appreciated, it should continue under a different name and its provisions made available to other sports. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, appeared to think that the order-making power in Clause 7(2) was extremely general. I remind the noble Baroness that the subsection is limited to the power to review the discharge of local authority functions. It is a limited power and not one which will cause a great deal of difficulty.
As regards the coverage of this part of the Bill, it is not our intention that the coverage should be universal, embracing all sports grounds. We have set a limit, as did the FLA, of sports grounds with a capacity for more than 10,000 spectators in total and/or a capacity for more than 500 spectators under cover. That should severely restrict the safety provisions of the new sports ground safety authority to those grounds for which it is really necessary.
I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that temporary structures such as those erected for the Ryder Cup would not be covered. Furthermore, I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Faulkner—although I think that he will be less pleased with this response—that indoor arenas are not covered by the Bill as drafted.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, in an excellent maiden speech, raised the issue of standing accommodation and the problem—which I fully recognise—that standing positions provide the cheapest admittance and that some people will be priced out of the market if standing accommodation is removed altogether. We reviewed this issue in 1997. At the time we came to the conclusion that we should continue with the implementation of the Taylor recommendation that premier league and first division clubs should have all-seated accommodation. That is still our view. Evidence presented to Taylor stressed that this is the safest form of accommodation. However, we recognise that other views are held on this point. The Minister for Sport, Kate Hoey, is currently holding talks with the FLA as regards whether any possible amendments would be appropriate. They are discussing in particular the experience in Germany where I understand that they are able to combine standing accommodation with a good accident record. The issue is not entirely closed and, of course, it will not be closed by the formulation in this Bill. On the whole, I am grateful for the support of all noble Lords who have spoken on this subject, in particular my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who has such a distinguished record in support of football.

1299
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why the sports ground safety authority should be the only one in the Bill which will have a private audit rather than audit by the National Audit Office. The answer is that the sports ground safety authority is simply the continuing authority to the Football Licensing Authority. No changes to its procedures will be adopted. As the noble Baroness knows, since this Government were formed, we have taken the view that new public bodies should be audited by the National Audit Office.
I turn now to the question of parks. Again, I believe that I can detect a general agreement with the provisions of the Bill, although some legitimate questions about the detail have been put. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked how the fixed penalty notices are to work. The answer is set out in some detail on page 14 of the Explanatory Notes, but my further answer is that fixed penalty notices do work. Local authorities apply them. I do not think that we need to be afraid of any undue novelty in introducing such a scheme.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the Royal Parks Agency would be able to retain the proceeds of the fines. The noble Lord,'Lord Brougham, asked the same question. The present position is that income from the fines will go into the Consolidated Fund, but we are seeking agreement to keep back at least sufficient to cover the costs of collecting the fixed penalties. If it is appropriate and possible I shall seek to report back to the House on this matter at a later date.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked me how we would be able to ensure that bona fide addresses are given. Again, this problem is encountered far more generally than in the royal parks. The constable will be able to ask for a form of identification. As in all other cases, he will be able to give a warning that giving a false name and address is an offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
I was grateful for the support of a number of Peers—including the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Brougham and Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooperfor— the recognition in the Bill that particular problems in Royal Parks, notably litter, unauthorised cycling and fouling by dogs, are offences on which we ought to crack down. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, about the Royal Parks Constabulary. We have been in discussions on this matter and as soon as they come to a conclusion I shall seek an opportunity to make a Statement to Parliament, possibly in the form of a Written Answer.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any idea of how long that will take?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no. There are issues still to be resolved and it would be unwise for me to guess the time it will take. We have recorded the noble Lord's concerns on this and other occasions.
1300
The noble Lord asked that the list of fixed penalties given in the Explanatory Notes be included on the face of the Bill. He gave the answer to that issue himself by suggesting that we would have to cover items such as rollerblades. If we were to put such items on the face of the Bill we would not be able to amend the list of offences by order at a later date. We have to retain some flexibility. But, on the whole, as I said, I detected considerable support for this part of the Bill.
The English Heritage section of the Bill is complicated. The first issue concerns the sites and monuments record which local authorities maintain and which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Freyberg, think should be made statutory. If we were to adopt the recommendations of the Power of Place report, that record would be extended to an historic environment record, which would be a considerable undertaking. The best thing to do under these circumstances is to give priority to obtaining comprehensive records, rather than giving a statutory basis to what has been acknowledged in debate as being a very variable, in quantity and quality, set of records in different local authorities. I of course agree that the links with culture online are entirely appropriate for these records.
There was general support for the extension of the powers to underwater archaeology from the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Renfrew and Lord Roper. I have noted the views about the inadequacy of the Protection of Wrecks Act, with which I do not disagree. So far as concerns funding for underwater archaeology, £305,000 is in the current budget already. English Heritage will be expected to add £200,000 funding to the extra budget which is being given to it. I believe that that is a satisfactory answer. The timing is that it will be introduced two months after Royal Assent.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, expressed the concern that the exploitation of intellectual property rights could conflict with copyright or with privately owned rights. It is certainly not intended to do so. He has prompted me to say that I will look again at the wording of the Bill as drafted to make sure that that is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, asked me whet her English Heritage would be able to keep the profits from the trading powers which are being given. The answer is an unequivocal yes.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, asked me about the phrase "formal merger" in the Explanatory Notes. He has a point. The Bill allows the existing merger to be completed. I do not think that that is properly reflected in the Explanatory Notes. We do not reprint them in this House but I shall make sure that the correction is made when the Bill goes to the House of Commons.
A more general point was made that we have not incorporated some of the recommendations of the 1996 Green Paper, which I acknowledge—it was published under a different government and we do not have to agree with everything that they did—and that we have not incorporated some of the

1301
recommendations in Power of Place. That is a little unreasonable. Power of Place was published within a few days of the publication of this Bill and I made it clear in the debate before Christmas that we did not expect to be able to incorporate those recommendations wholesale, even if there had not been substantial criticism of the report in the debate.
As to the complex issue of devolution and the powers of English Heritage, the noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked me to persuade Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to join with English Heritage. Of course, we always seek to persuade, but it is the nature of devolution that we do not always succeed.
Turning now to culture online, I think I detected more puzzlement than either support or antagonism, although I think many noble Lords were willing to give culture online the benefit of the doubt. It is difficult to explain. I had great difficulty in explaining it to myself and in getting other people to explain it to me. I had that part of my first speech rewritten and I am still not satisfied that I have got it right. Maybe we should organise a seminar on the subject.
Fundamentally, the discussion about culture online was extremely constructive and helpful. I am very grateful for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, thought that the Government should not have the power to give directions to culture online. I emphasise that culture online is to be an independent body. This is only an enabling Bill. I certainly could not agree that we should have a definition at this stage of what is culture online.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Obviously I was not as clear as I should have been. When I was talking about directions, I said that culture online should not direct people to particular sites at the behest of the Government. I was not in any sense intending to speak about directions being given by the Government to culture online.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry. I misunderstood. I am sure that it is my fault there was any misunderstanding.
But certainly the whole issue of what culture online should do and what it will cost—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to this—is the subject of a study by independent consultants. There is a consultation process going on. The Bill can provide some goals for culture online. It is a matter of legitimate parliamentary concern how it will work out in practice—and we should find a way of reflecting that concern—but a Bill giving enabling powers should not seek to define all of the details.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Before he leaves this subject, will he consider that it would be an advantage, bearing in
1302
mind that the general public have got to understand this Bill, if some definition—even a broad one—of culture online could be written into the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very much opposed to that view. I think that writing definitions into Bills in an area where we want the definition of culture to be as broad as possible, and where technology is changing all the time, would be damaging rather than helpful. I do not know what the definition would be and I am certainly not convinced that it would help the general public to understand.
That does not mean to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for example, that archaeology should be included in culture. That is fairly obvious.
I certainly agree with all noble Lords who said that access to art and culture through digital technology is no substitute for the real thing. Of course it is not. It was never intended that this should be an alternative to people going to museums and galleries, to reading books and looking at pictures, to being involved in all of the cultural activities which will be covered by culture online.
I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, about the danger of the exclusiveness of the Internet—the fact that some people are excluded, either financially or in terms of comprehension. That is why I said that, in addition, we shall be looking to other technologies and media. The Internet is merely a distribution channel for electronic data; however, it is presently the way to get hold of digitised images and text, and that is what culture online is about. I particularly welcomed the noble Baroness's emphasis on the role of libraries.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, despite himself, made a rather helpful speech about culture online. I am sure, given his general tone, that the noble Lord did not mean to be at all helpful. I agree with much of what he said. I agree that we should concentrate on collections that are not already digitised—the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made the same point. I agree that we must be wary of possible overlap with the BBC national curriculum, which is an enormous advance. I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Education will quote the noble Lord on what he said. But what we are proposing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, recognised, are materials to enrich the curriculum. That is an important area in which our artistic and cultural institutions can help. I agree that we need more sophisticated search engines than some of those that are currently available commercially.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was worried about the effect on the funding of museums and galleries. Certainly I recognise that we must ensure that museums and galleries do not suffer from the establishment of culture online. In addition to the development funding that I quoted at the beginning, we are making application to the capital modernisation fund. That recognises the fact that for

1303
a good deal of interactive material there is a huge up-front cost. It takes literally hundreds of hours and many thousands of pounds to produce even a half-hour interactive CD-ROM.
As regards relationships with the museums and galleries, a matter which also concerned the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, all of this will be collaborative. They will not be forced to take part against their will. However, I believe that the opportunity to make their collections and the expertise of their creators better known will be greatly welcomed by all of them. Having disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about definitions, I agree entirely about history in schools. I believe that culture online will be a great help in that regard.
I turn now to the issue of trustees of museums and galleries. I had the suspicion that a number of noble Lords had possibly decided at the weekend what they intended to say before the announcements that we have been able to make in the past couple of days. I was accused of "shooting a fox". I am no more capable of shooting a fox than I am of hunting with hounds. I am as terrified of holding a gun as I am of getting on a horse. I really do think it would be desirable for us to concentrate on the Bill as it will be rather than as it was originally presented to the House. A number of noble Lords recognised that and I am grateful to them for doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, thought that Schedule 5 should he dropped altogether. The chairmen of the museums and galleries certainly do not agree. They want the flexibility that the Bill will provide. They want the power to appoint at least 25 per cent of the members of their boards and the power to vary the size of the boards. I assure those who are worried about this matter that there is no threat to specially nominated trustees, such as those appointed by Commonwealth countries, the MoD and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Imperial War Museum. No changes will take place without the agreement of the boards. We do not need to mention Commonwealth or Ministry of Defence trustees in the Imperial War Museum because no change to their status is called for by the Bill. Perhaps I may say again to the noble Lord, Lord Bramall, that the new order will do exactly the same as Section 1(2) of the 1955 Act; therefore, again, no such reference is required.
It is legitimate for noble Lords to be suspicious about the amendments that we shall table. But I believe that we have done the best that we could have done in the circumstances. We set out our amendments in the memo to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on Tuesday of this week, and they have been made available to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We sent the instructions to counsel on Tuesday at the same time and have not yet received a response, so I am unable to give the actual text. However, on the basis of what was presented to the chairmen of the museums and galleries on Monday, Neil MacGregor of the National Gallery, who has been by no means the most friendly critic of the Government on this issue, said:
1304
"This is an elegant and sensible solution which is warmly welcomed by the gallery".
If the final amendments turn out to be wrong, I shall expect to stand up and be counted, but I do not believe that that is the case. I do not believe that we have done anything other than act with great speed in the past couple of days to meet the concerns that were expressed over the holiday period.
I am puzzled by the debate on the issue of the Nolan procedures and political involvement. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wanted to be sure that we were not letting in political involvement by the backdoor by using reserve powers. That was answered in part by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. Even so, there is a conflict here; there is a difficulty which is virtually impossible to resolve. Noble Lords say on the one hand that there is a problem finding people to fill vacancies; on the other hand, they say that it is important not to have political involvement—in other words, that we should involve the Nolan procedures. When we do that, we are criticised for the inflexibility of the Nolan procedures.
We cannot have it all ways. There have been some 539 appointments to public bodies by the Department for Culture since the election. Of those, 89.2 per cent have been non-political; there was no political activity. The proportion of women appointed has risen from 27 per cent to 36 per cent; the proportion of appointments from ethnic minorities has risen from 2.9 per cent to 6.6 per cent. I am looking at the noble Baronesses, Lady Flather and Lady Crawley, as I say this. We have a good record of transparent appointments, nonpolitical appointments and appointments that reflect the diversity of this country. I really do riot see that we have anything to apologise for.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My reference to this issue related not to the political point but to the delay in making appointments. I referred also to a past permanent secretary of two major government departments: it took months, using the Nolan procedures, to clear a person and decide whether that person was fit to take office. Perhaps I may cite another case, namely, that of the chief of staff of the air force, and the laborious procedure of considering the suitability of someone for appointment. There is an absurdity both in terms of delay and in applying procedures when all the information that needs to be known about a person is held already in government departments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not deny that there are problems with the Nolan procedures. However, I do not propose that this Government should return to the practices of the previous government. When a vacancy arose under the previous government, those concerned sent round notice to the Whips' Office to see who was loyal and might do the job. I give way.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The point I was making was for greater

1305
openness and a more uniform application of the Nolan procedures. I did not say that I was against those procedures. The Commissioner for Public Appointments has said that in the health service—indeed, this has featured in many newspaper reports—there certainly seems to be a bias in favour of Labour appointments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not concerned with newspaper reports. I suggest that the noble Baronesses, Lady Flather and Lady Blatch, sort out those differences of opinion between themselves. I do not believe that the Government need be involved.
I turn now to the various other issues that were raised tonight. I shall try to deal with those that are in the Bill as quickly as I can. I shall start with films policy. I was grateful for the support expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. However, I did not fully understand the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. After all, the Bill provides very few changes other than a statutory basis for the grants that the Film Council has been making since it was first established on a non-statutory basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has a point when she says that it is not designated firmly in the schedule. It is our intention to designate the Film Council. It is often a trick of legislation that you do not actually name the body in case the name changes and you have to amend subsequent legislation. However, if I am wrong about that, we may have to table further amendments or make it clear in other ways that it is our intention that it should be the Film Council. I certainly do not go along with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, that we might, in the end, go for a flotation of the Film Council. It is not our intention that this should be an ersatz commercial body. The experience is that we are not particularly good at running such commercial bodies. This is intended to encourage the art of film production. It is not expected that every single film that is supported should be commercially successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, believes that the jury is still out on the replacement of the English Tourist Board by the English Tourism Council. We must look at this in the light of the changes that have taken place in the relationship between the English Tourism Council and the regional tourist boards, which have been given greater independence and more money. Perhaps we should consider the funding of tourism. After all, the funding of the English Tourist Board under the previous government decreased from £25 million to £10 million a year. I agree that the figure is only creeping upwards, but it has been increased to £12 million for 2002–03 and —12.5 million for the following year. I believe that to be movement in the right direction.
1306
I take the points about regional museums, but I believe that they have been answered by my noble friend Lord Evans and the task force to which he referred. I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, about London statues. It is inappropriate for a 1854 Act which gave powers to the Office of Works to approve statues in London to be continued into the 21st century. If we have regional government in London, we must give it these powers over perhaps not the most important issues facing the Mayor of London. I hope that we shall not see amendments to oppose this transfer of power, when all the other existing planning controls are still in force.
I was grateful for the debate from a number of speakers, notably the noble Lords, Lord Luke and Lord Montagu, about Osborne House, as well as the helpful suggestions that were made about its future. Reference is made to the continued use of the premises by the Armed Forces and civil servants because they are there now. There must be some recognition of their "squatters' rights", so to speak. English Heritage is working hard on alternative uses for Osborne House, and will be very interested in the suggestions that have been made. I shall encourage those concerned to report in time for the matter to be considered before the issue leaves your Lordships' House.
Among my long list of matters which were referred to in the debate but which do not find a place in the Bill, I acknowledge what was said about local museums and galleries. I also acknowledge the points about value-added tax, and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, about the repatriation of human remains. I heard with respect and appreciation what the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Flather, said about problems with the National Lottery Charities Board and with the Millennium Commission. Of course, such matters are not covered by the Bill, but I have no doubt that the relevant authorities will take account of what has been said in the House this evening.
However, when I am challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, to trumpet our achievements and when I am told that this is a missed opportunity for political promotion—and that is really what he was saying when he described how disappointed he was with the Bill—I have to say that I do not believe that to be the point of legislation. We shall fight this election on our artistic, cultural and sporting policies; but we shall do so at the time of the election rather than seeking to make political points of that kind when we are dealing with practical and valuable legislation such as the Bill that is before the House this evening.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eight o'clock.

  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  International Criminal Court Bill: Consultation
  International Criminal Court Bill: Consultation
  State Retirement Pension Uprating for Recipients Living Abroad
  State Retirement Pension Uprating for Recipients Living Abroad
  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  "View of Hampton Court Palace": Ex Gratia Payment
  "View of Hampton Court Palace": Ex Gratia Payment
  BAE Systems: Warship Export Licences
  BAE Systems: Warship Export Licences
  Great Britain Bus Timetable
  Great Britain Bus Timetable
  Sea Harrier FA2 and Harrier GR7: Replacement
  Sea Harrier FA2 and Harrier GR7: Replacement